Some prior considerations about dissonance to understand its reduction: Comment on McGrath (2017)

Abstract

In a recent contribution to this journal, McGrath (2017) provided an overview of the reduction process of cognitive dissonance theory. To discuss the reduction strategy, she reviewed relevant studies and highlighted the means to reduce dissonance as well as factors that promote their use. In the present paper, we would like to raise some points which have not been considered by McGrath. First, we stress the historical development of the theory that orientated the study of attitude change as the major means of reduction. Second, we raise the issue of the term “dissonance” and the different conceptions about its reduction. Last, on the strength of published data, we insist on resistance to change as a central and essential factor to predict the reduction strategy. We consider that these elements, in addition to McGrath's valuable contribution, provide a comprehensive understanding of the current view of the dissonance reduction process.

On the Characteristics of the Cognitive Dissonance State: Exploration Within the Pleasure Arousal Dominance Model

“…These results are interesting because they can be linked to related hypotheses about the magnitude of the dissonance. In the vein of Festinger's original statement (1957), several scholars consider that the more numerous or important the cognitions involved in the cognitive dissonance state are, the stronger it should be (Kruglanski et al, 2018;Vaidis & Bran, 2018). That is a hypothesis of a linear relation between inconsistency and magnitude of dissonance.…”

Respectable Challenges to Respectable Theory: Cognitive Dissonance Theory Requires Conceptualization Clarification and Operational Tools

“…To serve that purpose, the term regulation fits best with the idea of generally decreasing the motivational state, while the term reduction could be reserved for regulation specifically aimed at reducing the inconsistency. In our opinion, this terminology is more integrated with the general theory (see Vaidis and Bran, 2018), as well as more connected to current knowledge (see also Proulx et al, 2012; Jonas et al, 2014; Levy et al, 2017).…”

“…Common sense suggests to consider using three different terms to define these entities. To improve clarity, Vaidis and Bran (2018) suggested calling the trigger inconsistency , the evoked arousal a cognitive dissonance state (CDS) and the theory cognitive dissonance theory (CDT).…”

“…Refining the terminology used in CDT could not only clarify the theory, but also impact the whole conception of the theory regarding ways to cope with “dissonance” (Vaidis and Bran, 2018). In Festinger's view (1957), regulation strategies are supposed to reduce “dissonance,” but does that mean resolving the inconsistency or does that mean alleviating the arousal?…”

“…Investigating strategies for reduction has historically been the overwhelming focus of CDT research. For decades, studies have been focused only on attitude change (for historical reviews, see Vaidis and Gosling, 2011; Vaidis and Bran, 2018), but the regulation strategies can be numerous (see McGrath, 2017). Traditionally, regulations are used to infer the existence of the CDS and authors reason that if individuals have changed their attitude, then they must have experienced cognitive dissonance (Devine et al, 1999).…”