Literature Review: Cognitive Dissonance in Communication

This literature review examines the cognitive dissonance theory within the context of communication. It delves into the core concepts of the theory, including how individuals strive to reduce discomfort caused by conflicting ideas and beliefs. The review explores key mechanisms such as selective exposure, minimal justification, and post-decision dissonance, analyzing their impact on attitude and behavior change. It highlights the importance of effective communication in rationalizing dissonances and achieving cognitive equilibrium. The review also discusses real-life examples of cognitive dissonance, such as a smoker being told to quit smoking, and how communication can facilitate a resolution. The study concludes by emphasizing the limitations of these rationalization processes and the need for further research to understand the nature and degree of incentives required to stimulate cognitive equilibrium among dissonant entities. Overall, the review underscores the essential role of cognitive dissonance in human interaction and the significance of efficient communication in addressing complex issues.

Running head: LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author note

1LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
Introduction
The term ‘Communication’ means the exchange of information between two or more
entities through writing, speaking or some other medium. According to Bonvillain (2019),
communication is an important aspect in human existence as it is the basis of acquiring and
sharing knowledge. The Cognitive Dissonance theory of communication was first
propounded by Leon Festinger (Chapanis & Chapanis, 2017). This theory is important to the
understanding of communication because it provides different perspectives and opinions of
various entities. Since opposing opinions can cause disruptions in ideologies, the cognitive
dissonance theory stresses on eliminating such disruptions through proper communication.
The theory of cognitive dissonance is applicable to scholars as well as the general-public, as
differing opinions and dissonances can occur in every field. The review will analyze the
aspects of rationalizing dissonances and how they are applicable in real life situations.
Theoretical discussion
The term dissonance refers to the discomfort felt by an individual when faced by
contrasting perspectives and opinions of others or a challenge faced by the individual against
his or her predominant cognition. Every individual has his or her own set of values and
beliefs that can become dissonant on accounting contrasting beliefs of other entities. The
cognitive dissonance theory explores such dissonance and challenges of opposing beliefs.
The theory further suggests that when faced by such contrasts and oppositions, individuals
have a tendency to motivate the reduction and elimination of dissonance through
communication. The objectives of such strategies to remove dissonance aim at increasing the
value of consonant elements and decrease the value of dissonant elements. The paradigmatic
assumption of this theory predicts that changing and accommodating an individual’s attitude,
beliefs and behavior can result in an elimination of dissonance (Griffin, 2012). Moreover,

2LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
such resolution can also be obtained by laying importance of agreeable information and
preventing discrepant information. The theory further elaborates on two topics of dissonance
reduction, namely, cognitive rationalization and behavioral rationalization. Cognitive
rationalization refers to the process of attitude changing in order to accommodate contrasting
viewpoints. According to Vaidis (2014), the process of cognitive rationalization can be
undertaken by a deliberate increase of preference for chosen options of decision making and
decrease of preference for rejected options. The process of such rationalization thus motivates
the reduction of varying opinions in any decision making procedure. According to McGrath
(2017), behavioral rationalization encompasses within its scope the changing or control of
behavior in order to reach a resolution of conflicting ideas and beliefs. The expected behavior
of an individual faced by challenging beliefs is justification of their opinions and behavior.
However, through effective communication, such contrasts can be overcome, following a
moderation of behavior to accommodate other opinions. This process involves the attaining
of a cognitive equilibrium producing a common ground for the elimination of unchosen
options in decision making. Through the passage of time, researchers have developed several
views about the cognitive dissonance theory, regarding the rationalization of opposing ideas.
Festinger himself hypothesized certain mechanisms that might cause rationalization and
harmony among individuals. These mechanisms have been termed as selective exposure,
minimal justification and post decision dissonance (Griffin, 2012).
Synthesis of scholarship
The cognitive dissonance theory predicts discordance among individuals due to the
exposure to contrasting viewpoints. However, according to Cooper and Carlsmith (2015) the
theory also depicts that such discordance can be elimination through a process of
rationalization. Leon Festinger, the postulator of the cognitive dissonance theory, further
suggested that there lies a tendency among individuals to control behavior and attitudes to

3LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
avoid dissonance. For this, various mechanisms have been identified by him, which include
selective exposure, minimal justification and post decision dissonance (Liang, 2016). The
research will follow a general to specific structure where processes of rationalization will be
channelized to the study of particular forms of rationalization, along with specific real life
examples of how cognitive dissonance is related to communication.
Selective Exposure
The psychological theory of selective exposure suggests that individuals have a
tendency to favor information that strengthens their predominant views and avoid
contradictory information. This theory lays its foundation in the cognitive dissonance theory
that suggests that individuals aim to attain a cognitive equilibrium to eliminate discordances
in ideas and beliefs (Metzger, Hartsell & Flanagin, 2015). Selective exposure drives
individuals to seek information even after attaining a specific stance on opinions. This allows
them to accommodate the opinions of other individuals thereby facilitating the elimination of
discordance that may arise out of contrasting beliefs. According to Festinger, the unpleasant
state faced by an individual due to an exposure to contrasting beliefs will in turn motivate
them to reduce it through a process of selective exposure. This process involves the
acquisition of relevant information and knowledge about the individual’s perspective in order
to be able to defend their views in front of others so that conflicting information is neglected
(Griffin, 2012). This in turn will provide justifications and defense for the predominant
viewpoints of the individual to others, thereby reaching a state of resolution and harmony.
However, the potency of selective exposure to eliminate dissonance is often argued
upon by researchers. It is so because, the motivation of individuals to indulge in selective
exposure depends on the magnitude of discordance experienced (Griffin, 2012). The
possibilities that in turn determine the magnitude of dissonance include relative absence,
moderate presence and extreme presence of opposing beliefs. In case of relative absence of

4LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
opposing beliefs, the individuals are expected to face rather low amount of dissonance,
thereby less motivation towards rationalization. Similarly, moderate presence of opposition
provides moderate levels of dissonance and motivation of rationalization. However, the
potency of selective exposure is maximum in the presence of extreme amounts of opposition,
as it produces high level of dissonance and thereby high motivation towards rationalization.
Minimal justification
The hypothesis of minimal justification suggests that individuals often provide
insufficient justification when faced by a dissonance of opposing ideas. The concepts of
internal and external justification are essential in the explanation of the aspect of minimal
justification in cognitive dissonance theory. Minimal justification is observed when an
individual seeks to utilize internal motivation to explain their behavior. However, the
inability to provide external justification may often cause an increase in dissonance among
other individuals. According to Miller (2017), the most efficient method of stimulating
attitude change for rationalization is to provide enough incentive to produce counter-
attitudinal behavior. Thus, in order to bring about private change towards public compliance,
communication must be made in a manner to provide enough incentives for the change.
However, it is difficult to determine the magnitude of incentives that will be enough
to bring about altitudinal change in an individual. This criterion depends upon the level of
dissonance that is faced by the individual. In case of relative absence of dissonance,
attitudinal change in individuals requires large amount of incentives. Similarly, moderate
dissonance requires moderate incentives for attitudinal change. Extreme dissonance causes an
increase in the individual’s motivation to rationalize, and therefore requires low amount of
incentive.

5LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
Post decision dissonance
The concept of post decision dissonance entails that individual or collective
discordance may arise after a decision has been taken, regarding the possibility of it being
incorrect (Zajonc, 2017). However, this discordance can be overcome through a process of
applying importance to the decision made and identifying its benefits to alter individual and
collective perspectives. This process will not only make the decision seem more attractive but
also result in rationalization and harmony among individuals. According to Festinger, the
process of decision making involves the individuals to commit themselves to it, thereby
reducing the possibility of discordance. Post-decisional dissonance encompasses the
identification or presumption of problems arising out of the decision made.
In terms of consumption patterns, consumers are often faced by post-decisional
dissonance regarding the choice of brand or product. However, communication initiatives
taken by the organization, such as maintenance of public relations surveys and reviews from
other customers can induce brand loyalty, which in turn can resolve post-decisional
dissonance (Liu & Keng, 2014). The degree to which such discordances can be rationalized
depends on the techniques used by the individuals to promote or justify decisions.
Instances of Cognitive dissolution and communication
As expressed by Festinger, cognitive dissolution may arise on the occasion of a
smoker being told to quit smoking on the grounds of health issues. The strong ideological
conflicts between the smoker and his well-wishers causes an uncomfortable situation, thereby
prompting the two entities to rationalize (Akpan, Beard & Notar, 2018). For this, the smoker
may resort to minimal justification by denying the connection between smoking and cancer.
He may also be given incentives to quit smoking in this process. Moreover, the smoker may
also resort to selective exposure to research medical cases where cancer and smoking were
unrelated. The two entities may thereby arrive at a resolution where the smoker reduces his

6LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
daily consumption of tobacco, presenting a common ground of cognitive equilibrium for both
the entities. This process of selective exposure and minimal justification require efficient
conversation between the entities so that information shared by them is comprehensible to
each other. Therefore, the process of rationalization in the theory of cognitive dissonance,
requires efficiency in communication so as to reach a cognitive equilibrium.
Conclusion
From the above analysis of various literature on cognitive dissonance, it can be
concluded that the theory suggests processes of rationalization like minimal justification,
post-decisional dissonance and selective exposure. However, these aspects have limitations
on the basis of their potency to induce attitudinal and behavioral changes. To overcome these
limitations, researchers must further analyze the scope of these theories in stimulating
rationalization among dissonant entities, the must also specify the nature and degree of
incentives that should be provided to stimulate cognitive equilibrium so that the interests of
none of the entities is compromised. Therefore, cognitive dissonance is an irrefutable essence
that is observed within every individual and collective scenario, engaging efficient interaction
among the entities to bring about resolution to difficult problems.

7LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
References
Akpan, J., Beard, L., & Notar, C. E. (2018). Cognitive Dissonance: The bane of value
systems. Reason, 1, 6.
Bonvillain, N. (2019). Language, culture, and communication: The meaning of messages.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Chapanis, N. P., & Chapanis, A. (2017). Cognitive dissonance: Five years later. In Attitude
Change (pp. 116-153). Routledge.
Cooper, J., & Carlsmith, K. M. (2015). Cognitive dissonance. In International Encyclopedia
of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (pp. 76-78). Elsevier Inc.
Griffin, E. A. (2012). A first look at communication theory/Em Griffin. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Liang, Y. J. (2016). Reading to make a decision or to reduce cognitive dissonance? The effect
of selecting and reading online reviews from a post-decision context. Computers in
Human Behavior, 64, 463-471.
Liu, Y. L., & Keng, C. J. (2014). Cognitive dissonance, social comparison, and disseminating
untruthful or negative truthful eWOM messages. Social Behavior and Personality: an
international journal, 42(6), 979-995.
McGrath, A. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(12), e12362.
Metzger, M. J., Hartsell, E. H., & Flanagin, A. J. (2015). Cognitive dissonance or credibility?
A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news.
Communication Research, 0093650215613136.

8LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION
Miller, G. R. (2017). Persuasion and public relations: Two “Ps” in a pod. In Public relations
theory (pp. 45-66). Routledge.
Vaidis, D. (2014). Cognitive dissonance theory. Oxford University Press.
Zajonc, R. B. (2017). The concepts of balance, congruity, and dissonance. In Attitude Change
(pp. 63-85). Routledge.

9LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMMUNICATION