What Does Cognitive Contradiction Theory Mean?

From time to time, I cannot understand some of the attitudes and behaviors of the people around me. For example, when someone talks about the harms of smoking to a smoker, they immediately talk about people who smoke and live a very long and healthy life, but who die at a young age even though they do not smoke. But I'm sure he knows that smoking is harmful too. However, instead of accepting the harms of smoking, he always diverts the subject. Moreover, such reactions are also made by my friends who are smoking doctors, whom I am sure are well aware of the harms of smoking.

It's not just about smoking. For example, when I asked why they voted for a political party or a mayoral candidate, many people from different political views said, "Is there anything better?" answers as. However, we have tens of political parties and a population of more than 80 million. I guess you don't need to be very smart to know that it is unreasonable to think that there cannot be a better party or a better candidate.

It is possible to see this kind of strange behavior in many other areas. Suppose you are in line for something. If someone tries to intervene, almost everyone in line will protest and even shout. That's why I even witnessed a fight break out. But most of the people in line see a long queue for themselves the next day, and check to see if there's someone they know in line to interrupt. Or think about people applying for any job. Many people who can't get a job and don't give up when someone with a job enters, don't hesitate to look for a job opportunity when another job opportunity comes up.

We often explain such behavior by the inconsistent personality traits of those who do. But the truth of the matter was that it wasn't. This behavior is unique to most people, if not all people. I learned this too when I read an article today. It turns out that some scientific researches examining these issues have been made and even a theory has been put forward on this subject.

I would like to say a Turkish scientist at a Turkish university who did this research, but unfortunately not. “Swiss scientists researched…” is often said in advertisements. If you remember the statements in the form and say that they researched it again, this is not true either. The researcher is an American. His name is Leon Festinger.

According to what I learned from the article I read, research on the sources of human behavior and perceptions has been carried out since 1950. Festinger, who is one of those who do such research, developed the Cognitive Contradiction Theory as a result of his findings. The original name of the theory was Cognitive Dissonance. According to this theory of Festinger, the basic concept in human behavior is "cognition". What is meant by “cognition” here; It is the ability of a person to perceive information about the outside world and make judgments about them.

According to the Cognitive Contradiction Theory, people determine their thoughts and behaviors according to the values ​​they have formed since childhood. These values ​​are; religious beliefs, political views, cultural elements or habits. In other words, values ​​are everything that makes up people's personalities, and human behavior is a reflection of their values.

However, from time to time, people may encounter some situations that are contrary to their values ​​and they may have to make a decision. In this case, first a conflict occurs in their minds, namely cognitive conflict. For example, in the example of the queue we gave above, a man waiting in line showed a negative attitude towards the intruder and said how wrong this behavior was, that it was immoral, disrespectful and even a crime, but the next day he had to enter a long queue and saw that someone he knew was in the queue, he went into a cognitive contradiction. falls.

His thoughts from yesterday, his current feelings, and the reality he's facing don't match. Although the man falls into a contradiction arising from this incompatibility at first, he gets over it in a short time. He starts to think that queuing is reasonable and even correct. If you remind him of his actions yesterday and say that what he did today was wrong, “But everybody does it.” He says, and puts forward many arguments that his behavior was right, or at least out of necessity. Because although the concepts he said yesterday were really right, his needs are different now.

These and similar behaviors define our stance towards reality. People's stance against the facts is not just out of necessity. People often show the will to refuse to accept subsequent incompatibilities for their beliefs. If they totally believe in something, they don't want it to be wrong. At this point, they either avoid facing the truth or resist it.

While doing this, they try different methods. For example, they act as if there is no opposing view. So they ignore it. So they do not face the disharmony and continue to deceive themselves. However they are so successful in doing this that they do not even realize that it is a deception. Another method is to defend their values ​​no matter what. They may even take an aggressive stance for this. They do not only want to refute the opposing view, they also desire to destroy it. Because they perceive it as an attack on themselves.

That's why people won't believe you if you tell them that a mayor from their own party is corrupt. They say you blame him just because you're from another party. They claim that you are malicious and slanderous. Even if you show concrete evidence, they will continue to defend the president. If they are forced to do so; “It rings, but it works.” They do not hesitate to say a proposition, such as a logical statement, which is actually more immoral than stealing when we think objectively (Because the stealer may admit that what he did was wrong, but stealing is justified here). That is, by hiding an immoral act like stealing behind a virtuous act like working, they present immorality as a necessary by-product that can be excused.

In fact, they subconsciously know that what they say is not true. But their defensive instincts cause them to reject what they think is right without even realizing it. For this reason, they try to either reject facts that are not in line with their own views, or to cover them up with other reasonable facts. Festinger defined this behavior as censorship. According to him, individuals often censor opposing views in order to protect their beliefs. They simply choose the values ​​they believe in and protect them. If they have to choose between these opposing views, they choose the one that is most compatible with their own views, not the best.

So what do we gain from knowing this theory?

First, it can help us question our own behavior.

On the other hand, it can also help us understand the origins of other people's behavior.

Understanding the origins of others' behavior can help us develop methods that will help them question and change their behavior rather than just blaming them.

If we are in the position of manager or supervisor, it can help us direct our subordinates in the right way.

If we belong to a political party that can't get as many votes as it wants from the public, it can help us to develop our discourse accordingly.

For this, it can contribute to our learning the values ​​of the people we appeal to and to whom we aspire to play, that is, to get to know the people.

In short, this theory can be useful in almost every aspect of our lives.