Cognitive Dissonance

What is Cognitive Dissonance?

Cognitive 'Consonance'

The opposite of 'dissonance' is 'consonance'. If dissonance produces a deeply negative emotional response, consonance produces an immediate positive emotional response. We have all experienced this as well. We clap, we cheer, we nod in approval when a speaker makes statements that are consonant with our beliefs.

It follows from the research in Neuroscience and Psychology that people will embrace - with little or no scrutiny - arguments that agree with their beliefs. That is, claims that produce cognitive 'consonance' are accepted on face value alone. Sometimes, a research paper may be proudly touted just by reading the title and the abstract's conclusion. Rarely is a consonant study's materials and methods section scrutinized for biases, errors and uncertainty. On the other hand, we pick apart the details of studies that contradict our beliefs. We just know that there must be an error, because our brains have already decided that such studies must be wrong.

Dissonance Management, Science and Pseudoscience

It would seem that science advocates and skeptics may fundamentally differ from pseudoscience advocates in the way in which cognitive dissonance is reduced. Ideally, when faced with two conflicting ideas, the skeptic weighs the likelihood of each idea against accepted knowledge and new information, then adopts the most parsimonious position. This may require the skeptic to change a previously held belief. The skeptics reduce dissonance by accepting that they were wrong. Skeptics change their minds.

Pseudoscience advocates and pseudoskeptics do not seem to do this. When faced with unambiguous, conflicting, scientific evidence against a favored idea, advocates reject or rationalize the disconfirming evidence as meaningless. They do this through the process of "motivated reasoning" (see below). They hold onto their previously held, favored belief. In fact, Festinger et al. showed that, in some cases, their belief actually may become reinforced after they rationalize away the disconfirming evidence.

As we learned on the Pseudoscience page, one cannot tout science when it supports a belief, and then reject science when it does not. You can't have it both ways.

Motivated Reasoning

Most people consider themselves to be rational. We all like to think that our positions on certain issues reflect the most reasonable stances to take based on the available evidence. But when presented with evidence that conflicts with our positions (especially those with which we self-identify in some way), it is natural to be extra critical of the new data. We are prone accept confirming evidence (confirmation bias) with little skepticism. However, we become expert skeptics when faced with data that may falsify our firmly held ideas.

There are lots of ideas and theories out there and many of them conflict with each other. Unless we try to falsify our theories, we will likely get stuck making type 1 errors (believing falsehoods). But we naturally want to defend our ideas, just as we want to defend our selves. We naturally don't like the feeling we get when we realize that we are wrong -- especially if others realize that we are wrong as well -- perhaps because this is an attack on our sense of "self". It violates the very basic belief about our self, that is : "I am a smart person". Somehow, we seem to naturally equate being wrong with being dumb on some level. This attack on the self produces dissonance.

To avoid this dissonance, we are motivated to preserve this basic belief about our selves. "I can't be wrong, therefore this new data must be wrong". This is the crux of motivated reasoning. We end up accepting statements uncritically that agree with us, because such statements do not violate our sense of self and therefore create no dissonance. We become defensive when faced with the possibility that we may be wrong (and thereby threatening our image of a smart self). We look for cracks in the opposing claims. We become critical of the methodology used in such studies that have conclusions that conflict with our views. We often resort to logical fallacies to attack our opposition, such as ad hominems and strawmen.

But such reasoning will often lead us astray. It is the nature of scientific thinking to pursue the falsification of our theories and ideas. We should be trying to falsify the theories that we hold dear. But we don't. This is not science's fault; it is a human fault. We should be equally critical of our established ideas as we are of opposing ideas.

Psychologist Steve G. Hoffman was quoted: "Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief," he says, "people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe." "For the most part, people completely ignore contrary information" and are able to "develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information."

It is the evidence, not our egos, that should lead to our conclusions.

Psychologist Ray Hyman recounted an experience that demonstrates rationalization in the face of disconfirming evidence. (Note, this was also reproduced in the Skeptic's Dictionary article on Cognitive Dissonance.)

Some years ago I participated in a test of applied kinesiology at Dr. Wallace Sampson's medical office in Mountain View, California. A team of chiropractors came to demonstrate the procedure. Several physician observers and the chiropractors had agreed that chiropractors would first be free to illustrate applied kinesiology in whatever manner they chose. Afterward, we would try some double-blind tests of their claims.

The chiropractors presented as their major example a demonstration they believed showed that the human body could respond to the difference between glucose (a "bad" sugar) and fructose (a "good" sugar). The differential sensitivity was a truism among "alternative healers," though there was no scientific warrant for it. The chiropractors had volunteers lie on their backs and raise one arm vertically. They then would put a drop of glucose (in a solution of water) on the volunteer's tongue. The chiropractor then tried to push the volunteer's upraised arm down to a horizontal position while the volunteer tried to resist. In almost every case, the volunteer could not resist. The chiropractors stated the volunteer's body recognized glucose as a "bad" sugar. After the volunteer's mouth was rinsed out and a drop of fructose was placed on the tongue, the volunteer, in just about every test, resisted movement to the horizontal position. The body had recognized fructose as a "good" sugar.

After lunch a nurse brought us a large number of test tubes, each one coded with a secret number so that we could not tell from the tubes which contained fructose and which contained glucose. The nurse then left the room so that no one in the room during the subsequent testing would consciously know which tubes contained glucose and which fructose. The arm tests were repeated, but this time they were double-blind -- neither the volunteer, the chiropractors, nor the onlookers was aware of whether the solution being applied to the volunteer's tongue was glucose or fructose. As in the morning session, sometimes the volunteers were able to resist and other times they were not. We recorded the code number of the solution on each trial. Then the nurse returned with the key to the code. When we determined which trials involved glucose and which involved fructose, there was no connection between ability to resist and whether the volunteer was given the "good" or the "bad" sugar.

When these results were announced, the head chiropractor turned to me and said, "You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It never works!" At first I thought he was joking. It turned it out he was quite serious. Since he "knew" that applied kinesiology works, and the best scientific method shows that it does not work, then -- in his mind -- there must be something wrong with the scientific method. This is both a form of loopholism as well as an illustration of what I call the plea for special dispensation. Many pseudo- and fringe-scientists often react to the failure of science to confirm their prized beliefs, not by gracefully accepting the possibility that they were wrong, but by arguing that science is defective.

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance is an integral part of our psychology. It is a barrier that prevents individuals from recognizing when they are wrong. In the world of science and medicine, recognizing one's errors is vital. Patients' lives may depend on it. We are all prone to cognitive dissonance and to using motivated reasoning to overcome it.. By recognizing it at work in ourselves and being open to being wrong are hallmarks of good, skeptical doctors.

John Byrne, MD