It’s getting to the final stretch of the semester where motivation is inevitably waning. I bet you can’t do the assignment you have been putting off. I bet you can’t put your phone down. I bet you can’t reach out to the friend you’ve been meaning to reconnect with. I bet you can’t keep reading this article.
If these statements made you uncomfortable, you just experienced one of the most influential theories in social psychology — cognitive dissonance. The theory of cognitive dissonance was first explored in the 1950s by social psychologist Leon Festinger, who proposed that inconsistency between beliefs or behaviors creates a psychological tension (dissonance), motivating the individual to restore consistency, or ‘consonance.’ In simple terms: humans love harmony. When lacking it, we will change our behavior or attitude to find it.
The induced-hypocrisy paradigm expands upon the foundational theory of cognitive dissonance. Inducing hypocrisy is a two step process: the individual publicly advocates for a socially desirable behavior, then privately reflects upon their own failure to practice the behavior they publicly preach.
Lead researcher of a 1997 study on hypocrisy and motive for self integrity, Dr. Jeff Stone, informs us that resolution of hypocrisy induced cognitive dissonance follows two strategies, direct and indirect. The direct strategy is to “alter an element of the discrepant cognition,” such as changing self-belief, compensating for the unwanted behavior, or distorting perceptions that lead to the initial discrepancy. The indirect solution, as the name suggests, reduces dissonance without altering elements of the initial discrepancy. Indirect resolution techniques include blaming others, “misattributing the discomfort to something other than the discrepancy,” and affirming “other valued aspects of the self,” unrelated to the discrepancy.
Stone’s 1997 study consisted of two experiments. In the first experiment, heterosexually active participants were asked to videotape themselves giving a speech promoting condom use for a high school AIDS prevention program, and their speech motives were primed to be either personally or negatively motivated. Upon departure from the experiments, participants were given the opportunity to buy condoms at a steep discount (direct dissonance resolution) or donate money to a program to feed homeless people (indirect). In experiment two, participants were “made to feel hypocritical about their past failure to help the homeless.” Participants were then randomly assigned one of the three dissonance reduction groups where they: 1) had the option to directly restore self-integrity by donating to the homeless charity, 2) had the option to indirectly affirm self-worth by purchasing discounted condoms, or 3) were offered a choice between donating to the homeless charity or buying discounted condoms. Stone’s 2×2 factorial study concluded that when given the option between direct and indirect dissonance reduction techniques, individuals prefer to resolve their dissonance directly by adopting the behavior they advocated to others — even when an indirect alternative is just as available!
Although Stone et al.’s findings are profound, it is always difficult to make sweeping psychological conclusions. An individual’s susceptibility to cognitive dissonance discomfort depends partially on their disposition. I’m sure we all know a chronic hypocrite. As Dr. Corrine Leikam informed EveryDayHealth author Moira Lawler, “Some people may experience [cognitive dissonance] more intensely or frequently if they have a high need for consistency in their lives.”
Key takeaways? If you are struggling to stay on top of coursework or other responsibilities, try inducing your own hypocrisy paradigm. Utilize your built-in cognitive dissonance as a tool. Tell multiple people you are going to have ‘x’ done by ‘y’ time, and hold yourself to it! Or don’t, and devalue your self-integrity.
