Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Cognitive dissonance and balance theory in social attitudes

Cognitive dissonance and balance theory in social attitudes:
What is the role of cognitive dissonance and balance theory in social attitudes?

Overview

Figure 1. Politicians engaging in public debate. Imagine this ... Imagine that for all your life you have been loyal to a singular political party. So far, you have agreed with all their major policies and so do your family and friends. However, during this election cycle, a candidate from the opposite party makes several compelling arguments that leaves you feeling conflicted. Should you change allegiance to the other party? Talk to your friends and family who may disagree with you? Try to ignore the opposite party anyway or even reframe what they said to maintain your personal beliefs (see Figure 1).

In this scenario, internal conflict about attitudes, values, beliefs or behaviours can result in psychological stress and place strain on social interrelationships. The resolution or reduction of this psychological phenomenon is a significant driving force behind the formation and changing of individual attitudes. On a larger scale, social attitudes are also influenced by this mechanism of change, resulting in a cognitive re-evaluation of social issues, social norms, prejudices and values.

Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) explains that when individuals are experiencing cognitive dissonance and then resolve it, often the outcome will be changed attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. Additionally, balance theory (Heider, 1946) examines how affiliation and sentiment in triadic social relationships can lead to reevaluated attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. The processes behind cognitive dissonance reduction and the maintenance of social balance in interrelated social connections are mechanisms for constructing and changing social attitudes. Understanding the motivations in society that underpin both individual and collective attitude change allows for critical self-reflection and deeper awareness of the surrounding social environment.

Focus questions What are social attitudes and how are they formed? How does cognitive dissonance explain changes in social attitudes? How does balance theory explain the influence of relationships on social attitudes?

Social attitudes

The ABC model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998) describes how the entirety of an individual's attitudes is formed through affective, behavioural and cognitive components. The model describes the affective component as the emotional response such as fear, the behavioural component as actions and the cognitive component as the established beliefs and knowledge. In a social context different collective variables such as cultures, political systems and economic status increase variety between societies. Attitudes, once formed, dictate the way individuals interact and evaluate social situations, issues, objects and people.

Figure 2. Cat getting pet (Behaviour)

Social attitudes refer to the function of attitudes on a collective scale. This encompasses shared values, beliefs and attitudes about concepts that exist beyond the individual such as political, economic, cultural and legal issues. Individual attitudes are generally stable but can change gradually over time (Wang et al., 2021). In social, political and legal issues such as income equality, legalised same-sex marriage and euthanasia use there has been an increased positive attitude but decreased positivity toward immigration (Leijen & Van Herk, 2024). There is a correlation between individual attitudes reflecting the collectively held attitudes and vice versa. If the social structures within societies do not represent the collective attitude, individuals may be motivated to cause social change in acts like protesting and raising awareness for the cause. It is important to understand social attitudes as they are an indicator of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours within relative contexts.

Example: (Figure 2) I love fluffy cats much more than dogs (Affective). Every time I see a cat I go to pet and play with it (Behavioural) despite the fact that I am allergic and they can scratch me (Cognitive).

Cognitive dissonance theory

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state of discomfort that occurs when there is a conflict or inconsistency between two or more simultaneously held beliefs, attitudes, behaviours, actions or ideas (Festinger, 1957).

Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) postulates that in addition to cognitive dissonance creating psychological tension, there is also an innate motivation to resolve that discomfort in some way. Festinger hypothesised that cognitive consistency was a baseline that individuals make an active effort to return to when experiencing dissonance, through either adaptive or maladaptive strategies. Cognitive dissonance theory also includes considers the magnitude of the dissonance as a motivating factor because the larger the dissonance the more urgency there is to reduce the tension (Cooper, 2019). To measure cognitive dissonance four distinct paradigms are identified that explain the situations and contexts where cognitive dissonance occurs. In order to resolve the dissonance individuals will either change their attitude about the dissonant , add new cognitive information that increases internal consistency or reevaluate the dissonant situation's magnitude (Festinger, 1957).

Paradigm applications

Situations that cause cognitive dissonance can be categorised into the following four core paradigms that examine everyday activities such as decision making or putting in effort. The magnitude of the cognitions within the paradigms plays a large role when evaluating importance and reduction strategy. This accounts for situations that may fit a paradigm but if an individual doesn't find it important there may be limited dissonance or maladaptive resolutions (Cancino-Montecinos et al., 2020). For example, social attitudes on social issues online are less likely to be changed through social media due to confirmation bias as individuals are more likely to reinterpret or actively seek opinions consistent with their values (Wang et al., 2021). Despite this, attitude change is the most common way to adaptively resolve cognitive dissonance and directly contributes to change on a collective scale. The mechanisms behind reducing cognitive dissonance within the paradigms demonstrates how social attitudes are formed, maintained and changed in societies.

Free choice

The free choice paradigm refers to a situation where after making a difficult choice between two options individuals are likely to reevaluate their chosen option more positively and devalue the rejected option (Chen & Risen, 2010a). In the classic experiment by Brem (1956) participants rank a set of items and then are asked again to rank two chosen items. After the re-evaluation of the items the amount the ranks are changed is referred to as spreading of alternatives (Chen & Risen, 2010b). This paradigm uses justification techniques to resolve cognitive dissonance by changing the perceived value of the two objects. The re-evaluation and spreading of alternatives can resolve dissonance if there is post decision regret.

Belief disconfirmation

The belief disconfirmation paradigm refers to when new information directly conflicts with an individual’s established attitudes and values. If an individual is not perceptive to changing their established attitudes despite the obvious inconsistencies, they are experiencing a disconfirmation bias and may maladaptively react. In the political domain, participants that favoured Donald Trump reviewed news articles about alleged legal and moral wrongdoings but when tested there was an increase in hostility toward his political opponent (Harmon-Jones et al., 2020). In this paradigm new information causes cognitive dissonance but the magnitude was not significant enough to change attitudes or behaviours instead causing reaffirmation and continuation of attitudes. Politically, this relationship highlights how dissonance reduction processes can form and sustain social beliefs in individuals.

Induced compliance

The induced compliance paradigm occurs when an individual is forced to behave in a way that does not align with their previously established attitudes. In Festinger and Carlsmith's (1959) fundamental experiment participants completed a boring activity and then were given either $1 or $20 after telling another person the task was fun. The participants that were paid only $1 experienced more cognitive dissonance as they had to reevaluate the task as enjoyable without the external reward as a justification (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). This paradigm explores how social attitudes can be reshaped when behaviours or actions are forced on an individual.

Effort justification

The effort justification paradigm refers to when individuals exert significant effort or cost but receive disappointing results or outcomes. In an experiment by Aronson & Mills (1959), participants undertook various levels of severity of initiation to get into a group discussion that ended up being uninteresting. Individuals who had the most severe initiation effort required experienced cognitive dissonance and had to self-justify the effort by evaluating the class more positively than the low severity participants (Aronson & Mills, 1959). This paradigm demonstrates how individuals may attach their attitudes to social groups if a significant effort was produced even without optimal outcome.

Balance theory

Balance theory, created by Fritz Heider (1946), is based on the concept that individuals innately seek balance in their social relationships and their own attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. When an imbalance occurs between either component it motivates a drive to maintain cognitive consistency and harmony by restoring the equilibrium.

Heider utilised a triadic framework to demonstrate balance theory. The first element is relative to the individual's perspective, the second is the other individual in the relationship or social situation and finally the third element is an undefined 'object' that can be manipulated to fit context and situation, often referring to another person, object, idea, behaviour or attitude (Heider, 1946).

POX model

To illustrate Heider's triadic relationship the POX model was developed by Cartwright and Harary (1956) for both social and broader research applications. As it was based on Heider's theory and original equation POX can be broken down into the three elements. In POX, 'P' represents a person, referencing the focus on the self, 'O' represents the other person and 'X' represents the unspecified final element. Within the framework there are two dynamics between the relationships of the three elements. Unit relationships refer to the dynamic of similarity or dissimilarity of the elements and sentimental relationships refer to the emotion-based evaluations, usually just like or dislike as the positive and negative. In the POX model balance and imbalance is based on the accumulative positive and negative interactions between both unit and sentimental elements (Hummon & Doreian, 2003). To rebalance an imbalanced triad one of the elements must be either changed or reevaluated to create stability and remove psychological tension.

If you (P) like the other person (P likes O) but they don't like a band (O dislikes X) that you do like (P likes X) there is an imbalance. To solve this, you could change your attitude about the band, change the other person's attitude about the band or change your evaluation of liking the other person.

Applications

The POX model allows for simplistic understanding of the cognitive and behavioural complexities in social environments by breaking it down into elements and dynamics. It is hypothesised that maintenance of balanced social networks on an individual level, regarding sentiment, correlates with social cohesion and balanced interrelationships on a societal level. (Rawlings & Friedkin, 2017). The balance theory can be utilised to motivate social change in situations like when the 'X' element is regarding a social or political issue and 'P' and 'O' have opposing attitudes towards it. The mechanisms behind rebalancing interrelated triadic relationships in the POX model can be applied to many social domains as a motivator of changed social attitudes.

Workplace

To maintain social cohesion in the workplace where there is often power dynamics at play it is important to not experience psychological discomfort due to imbalanced relationships (Reid et al., 2017).

Consumer habits

• Celebrity endorsments are effective only when the individual is a fan of the celebrity otherwise there is no sentimental relationship.

Health

• If you smoked cigarettes but knew an admired family member didn't like you smoking there are two forms of pressure in the family members attitude toward smoking as well as their proximity to the individual.

Social

• Cultural experiences outside of an individual's social network, if positive, can improve prejudiced attitudes and beliefs.

Comparison of theories (social attitudes)

Cognitive dissonance theory	Balance theory
Explains how individuals change their attitudes when there is psychological dissonance.	Explains how social attitudes impact social relationships.
Attitudes are changed by the need for cognitive consistancy	Attitudes develop based on interrelated social balance
Highlights individual attitudes and values	Highlights social networks and relationships

1

Cognitive dissonance refers to the pyschological discomfort experienced due to holding two conflicting attitudes at the same time:

	True
	False

2

Balance theory refers to the preference of harmony and balance within relationships and attitudes:

	True
	False

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance theory and balance theory are complementary in the mechanisms and assumptions that form, sustain and grow social attitudes. Social attitudes encompass an how an individual's attitudes, beliefs and values are built from their unique social context and personal factors. Cognitive dissonance focuses on the internal conflict and discomfort that requires resolution as a motivator for change in social attitudes. Similarly, balance theory utilises the influence of emotional connection and proximity to influence social attitudes. The broader implications extend across societies and individuals. Having personal knowledge of these theories will help in personal self-reflection.

See also

• Cognitive dissonance and motivation (Book chapter, 2021)
• Cognitive dissonance (Wikiversity)
• Social cohesion (Wikipedia)
• Theory of planned behaviour (Wikipedia)

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 59(2), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047195

Cancino-Montecinos, S., Björklund, F., & Lindholm, T. (2020). A general model of dissonance reduction: unifying past accounts via an emotion regulation perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.540081

Cartwright, D., & Harary, F. (1956). Structural balance: a generalization of Heider's theory. Psychological Review, 63(5), 277–293. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0046049

Chen, M. K., & Risen, J. L. (2010a). How choice affects and reflects preferences: Revisiting the free-choice paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 573–594. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020217

Chen, M. K., & Risen, J. L. (2010b). How to Study Choice-Induced Attitude Change: Strategies for Fixing the Free-Choice Paradigm. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(12), 1151–1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00323.x

Cooper, J. (2019). Cognitive dissonance: where we’ve been and where we’re going. International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.277

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 269–322). McGraw-Hill.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593

Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Denson, T. F. (2020). A novel way of responding to dissonance evoked by belief disconfirmation: making the wrongdoing of an opponent salient. Social Influence, 15(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2020.1781248

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. The Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275

Hummon, N. P., & Doreian, P. (2003). Some dynamics of social balance processes: bringing Heider back into balance theory. Social Networks, 25(1), 17–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8733(02)00019-9

Leijen, I., & Van Herk, H. (2024). Longitudinal analysis of the relation between changes in human values and social attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 236, 112994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112994

Rawlings, C. M., & Friedkin, N. E. (2017). The Structural Balance Theory of Sentiment Networks: Elaboration and Test. American Journal of Sociology, 123(2), 510–548. https://doi.org/10.1086/692757

Reid, C. A., Davis, J. L., Pollack, J. M., & Coughlan, R. S. (2017). Balance theory revisited: Relationship issue relevance affects Imbalance-Induced Tension in Workplace relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 151(6), 547–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1372342

Wang, Y., Dai, Y., Li, H., & Song, L. (2021). Social media and attitude change: Information booming promote or resist persuasion? Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.596071

External links

• Timeline of Trumps alleged sexual misconduct (The Guardian)