When people are personally involved with an issue, much like the use of
tobacco, they are much more attentive to the issue (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, p.
847). For example, on 3/31/96 I told my three friends that I was concerned about
how much they had been smoking recently. On the average they are smoking 20
cigarettes a day. One of the girls immediately retaliated with the statement
that “ her grandmother smoked for nearly all of her life and she is in good
health.” In this particular instance we can see the basicpremise of the
consistency theories at work. The girl who said this statement likes me. She
also enjoys smoking. When I made the statement that I was concerned with the
levels of tobacco consumption she disregarded my opinion by using past
experiences as evidence to back her point. She is a friend so I assume she
somewhat values my opinion, but she upgraded her opinion of smoking and
downgraded my opinion. She experienced some form of dissonance when I stated my
opinion. She reduced her dissonance and thus was in balance. This is where
Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance attempts to rationalize her behavior.
The other consistency theories do not recognize the degree to which the
dissonance exist. If you were to not use Festinger’s model, most likely you
would have assumed that my opinion would have changed her attitude and actions.
After all, I did have a contradictory opinion that did not follow hers, and
dissonance was felt. That’s what is missing from the balance theory and the
congruency theory: “latitudes of attitude”. This theory, unlike many others,
must factor in the human psyche as a variable. The persuasion process did not
occur in this case because my friends attitude towards not smoking was so
anti-quitting, that it might be impossible to change. You cannot think of this
theory in regards to machines you must look at it from the human perspective.
Another example of observable cognitive-dissonance occurred on 4/7/96. The same
three friends and myself were watching television.
An anti-smoking campaign sponsored by the American Red Cross came on
the television. Various facts about the amount of people that die every year
from smoking and statistics about the amount of Americans with lung cancer were
shared. I asked the girls what they thought about the information. They all
agreed that it could happen to them, but they hoped it did not. In this case, I
believe dissonance was created by exposure to information. The girls did not
like the information and downplayed its validity. Not one of the girls stood up
and said, “I am going to quit smoking today, I am really at risk of getting lung
cancer!” Once again personal involvement was a given, and once again no action
was taken. The girls feel to strong about smoking and refuse to quit. We must
ask ourselves what a solution to this problem could be? Why is it that smokers,
in the face of grave danger, refuse to reduce dissonance by acting out their
urge to quit smoking? The cognitive-dissonance theory is a part of our everyday
lives, whether we realize it or not. When we are presented with view points or
opinions that differ from our own often times we feel dissonance. We, as human
beings, are always striving to keep our lives in balance. Often a balance in our
psyche requires that we not heed the warnings of things to come. As I have
shown, cognitive-dissonance is utilized to avoid taking action. As many theorist
have stated cognitive dissonance does create an internal conflict that causes
someone to take action. In the case of smokers, I must regrettably report that
smoking is vary rarely avoided, even with dissonance in full effect. Smokers,
when presented with hard core data showing a decline in health due to smoking,
refuse to head warning. This is evident with all of the “guaranteed” products to
help people stop smoking. First there was “The Patch” and now the consumers are
intrigued with products, such as Niccorrest Gum. Apparently no matter how much
dissonance is felt and to what degree it is felt does not matter. Therefore, it
may not be possible to get rid of dissonance or even to reduce it materially by
changing one’s behavior or feeling. The research I have conducted supports my
claim that it is nearly impossible to change the actions of smokers even though
massive amounts of cognitive dissonance are felt. I believe that many of the
people being observed reduced th overall magnitude of dissonance by adding new
cognitive elements. No matter how much dissonance is felt, the smoker will
always find elements that are consonant (agreeable) with the fact of smoking.
The will power of individuals feeling as though they have to have smoking in
their everyday lives is, often times, far to powerful for dissonance to overcome
Perhaps research such as mine can be useful to further research into the area of
dissonance and the use of tobacco. Much work still needs to be done in this
area. We see so many people dying from lung cancer. Something must be done
Perhaps looking at effective methods of treatment.
Bibliography
Bender, David, and Bruno, Leone.(Ed.) (1991). Cognitive Dissonance: Opposing
viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc. Wolf, Robert. (1997). Cognitive
Dissonance Treatment. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. Baird, Robert, and
Rosenbaum, Stuart. (Ed.) (1995). The Current Debate. New York: Prometheus Books.
Steins, Richard. (1993). Is It Justice?. New York: Twenty-First Century Books.
Jacobs, Nancy. E.D. (Ed.) (1996) Cruel And Unusual Treatment?. Texas:
Information Plus. McCafferty, James. (1974). Cognitive Dissonance. New York.
Lieber-Atherton. Josephson, Matthew. (1997). Discrimination and Cognitive
Dissonance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. McCartney, K. (1998). “Choosing
life or Death.” Developmental Psychology, 20, 113-119. Hand, D. (1998).
Treatment: How Well Does it Work. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rilke, Richard. Home Page. 18 Feb. 1999 Walker, Davis, and Tristar Home Video.
(1995). Living with the Helpless. [Videotape]. Burbank CA: Tristar Home Video. .
Words: 2022
