Text and Context
How the act of gaslighting isolates people from society and distorts their immediate reality
The cognitive dissonance theory was one of the most influential theories in social psychology first proposed by Leon Festinger in his book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance in 1957. Festinger’s theory was the product of an experiment conducted by him and his colleagues to understand the conflicts between thoughts and behaviour. The theory proposes that inconsistency between one’s thoughts and behaviours would lead to an uncomfortable psychological or emotional tension (cognitive dissonance) among individuals/groups which results in them either changing the inconsistent elements to reduce the dissonance or adding consonant elements to restore harmony.
The study of a cult by Festinger resulted in the theory of cognitive dissonance. A woman started a cult claiming that she received messages from extraterrestrial aliens that the world would end due to a flood on a specific date and that a flying saucer would arrive to rescue people who believed in the prophecy. Many people joined the cult leaving their families, jobs, money and possessions. Festinger and his colleagues joined the cult to observe how believers would react if and when the prophecy failed.
It was observed that while believers shunned publicity when they were waiting for the flood, immediately after the prophecy failed, most of the group members contacted media and attempted to proselytise many (attempts to lure others into their cult) so as to enlist new believers to obtain social support (consonant elements). Festinger suggested that the disproval of the prophecy created cognitive tension among the believers and to maintain consistency between their thoughts and behaviour, they sought social support. More members were added to the cult to reduce the dissonance created by the disconfirmation of their prophecy.
Through a series of experiments, Festinger postulated the forced compliance paradigm, extending the cognitive dissonance theory. In an experiment where the subjects had to perform a series of menial tasks and lie to another person about the tasks being interesting and enjoyable, it was found that the subjects who received $1 to lie did a better job than the ones who received $20. Festinger explained that this was because the subjects who were paid more did not experience dissonance, as they were rewarded well and had ample justification for lying. Whereas the subjects who were paid a mere dollar experienced dissonance and to justify their experience, they re-evaluated the menial tasks as enjoyable, making their lie more believable to others (as the subject believed in it themselves).
The experiment shows that in an attempt to reduce dissonance, the attitude towards it changes, more likely in the direction of less incentive. Cognitive dissonance theory, in this regard, contradicts most behavioural theories that attribute positive changes to higher incentives.
Festinger explained that there were different ways in which individuals or groups resolved cognitive dissonance to best suit their situations. One could change one’s thoughts, change one’s behaviour to match one’s thoughts, add a thought to justify the behaviour or trivialise the inconsistency between thoughts and behaviour.
Let’s take the example of X- a 25-year old-graduate (unemployed) who has newly started supporting a political party. He follows the political party as he believes in their promises of providing better job opportunities and development for youngsters in the country if they came to power. His party wins the elections. Despite five years of governance by his party, no significant changes occur in the employment sector and X is still unemployed. As the next elections approach, the political party members request his support. In such a situation, what would X do?
X can change his thought about the situation- He looks at his neighbours B and C, who are also graduates. They have started a chai shop and samosa shop respectively, in their street. X concludes that though not in a conventional sense, jobs were created after his party came into power, changing his opinion about the situation, and reducing the inconsistency in his belief. He will still vote for the same political party with a change in his perspective.
X can change his behaviour towards the situation- He understands and accepts that the promises made by the political party he supported were false and decides not to trust them anymore. Thus, he changes his behaviour and attitude towards the situation and does not vote for the political party already in power, which had deceived him with promises of better job opportunities and development.
X can add a thought- He analyses the activities of his government. Though the party failed to provide job opportunities to youngsters, it successfully built 200-metre tall statues, a new Supreme Court (building), monuments and bridges in the last five years. He concludes that though the government failed to provide jobs, in the past five years under his party’s leadership, there was infrastructural development. He resolves the cognitive inconsistency between his thoughts and behaviour by adding a thought that rationalises his support of the political party. He will still vote for the same party with the hope that the party will fulfil its promise and provide employment for its citizens in the next term.
X can trivialise the inconsistency- He compares the state of his country after his party came into power with economically poorer neighbouring countries. He observes that while only 40% of the educated youth in his country are employed, the share is less than 30% in his neighbouring countries. In trivialising the faults in his political party’s governance, the tension created due to the inconsistency between his thoughts and behaviour is negated. He will thus continue voting for the same political party as he has now justified the reason behind supporting the party.
Cognitive dissonance theory explains how individuals or groups rationalise their support and belief toward different religions, cults or political parties, partially blinding themselves to reduce the contradictions between their thoughts and behaviour.
While there are various ways to resolve cognitive dissonance, in most cases, people tend to justify their behaviour by either adding consonant elements or negating contradictory or inconsistent thoughts. This is because it is easier to change one’s thoughts than to introspect and question one’s belief system.
