Psychologist Leon Festinger proposed the theory of cognitive dissonance , which explains how people try to maintain their internal consistency. He suggested that individuals have a strong inner need that drives them to make sure that their beliefs, attitudes and behaviour are consistent with each other . When there is inconsistency between them, conflict leads to disharmony, something that people strive to avoid.

This theory has been widely studied in the field of psychology and can be defined as the discomfort, tension or anxiety that individuals experience when their beliefs or attitudes conflict with what they do. This displeasure can lead to an attempt to change behaviour or to defend their beliefs or attitudes (even reaching self-deception ) in order to reduce the discomfort they produce.

Festinger was the author of “Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” (1957), a work that revolutionized the field of social psychology, and which has been used in different areas, such as motivation, group dynamics, the study of attitude change and decision making.

The relationship between lying and cognitive dissonance

The relationship between lying and cognitive dissonance is one of the issues that has attracted the most attention from researchers. Leon Festinger himself, together with his colleague James Merrill Carlsmith, carried out a study that showed that the mind of liars resolves cognitive dissonance “by accepting the lie as a truth” .

The Festinger and Carlsmith Experiment

Both designed an experiment to prove that if we have little extrinsic motivation to justify behavior that goes against our attitudes or beliefs, we tend to change our minds to rationalize our actions.

To do this, they asked some students from Stanford University, divided into three groups, to do a task that they evaluated as very boring. Later, the subjects were asked to lie, as they had to tell a new group that they were going to do the task, that it had been fun. Group 1 was allowed to leave without telling the new group, group 2 was paid $1 before lying, and group 3 was paid $20.

A week later, Festinger called the study subjects to ask them what they thought of the assignment. Group 1 and 3 responded that the task had been boring, while group 2 answered that it had been fun . Why did the members of the group who had received only $1 claim that the task had been fun?

The researchers concluded that people experience a dissonance between conflicting cognitions. Receiving only $1, students were forced to change their thinking, because they had no other justification ($1 was insufficient and produced cognitive dissonance) . Those who had received 20 dollars, however, had an external justification for their behaviour, and therefore experienced less dissonance . This seems to indicate that if there is no external cause to justify the behaviour, it is easier to change beliefs or attitudes.

Increase cognitive dissonance to catch a liar

Another famous study in this line of research was carried out by Anastasio Ovejero , and concluded that, with respect to lying, “It is necessary to understand that subjects generally live in cognitive consonance between their thinking and acting and if for some reason they cannot be congruent, will try not to talk about the facts that generate dissonance, thus avoiding increasing it, and will seek to rearrange their ideas, values and/or principles in order to be able to justify themselves, thus achieving that their set of ideas fit together and the tension is reduced” .

When cognitive dissonance occurs, in addition to making active attempts to reduce it, the individual usually avoids situations and information that could cause him/her to feel uneasy .

An example of using cognitive dissonance to detect a liar

One of the ways to catch a liar is by causing an increase in cognitive dissonance, so that he can detect the telltale signs. For example, an individual named Carlos, who had been out of work for two years, starts working as a salesman for a power company. Carlos is an honest person with values, but has no choice but to take money home at the end of the month .

When Carlos goes to visit his customers, he has to sell them a product that he knows will eventually result in a loss of money for the buyer, so this conflicts with his beliefs and values, causing him to experience cognitive dissonance. Carlos will have to justify himself internally and generate new ideas aimed at reducing the discomfort he may feel .

The client, on the other hand, could observe a series of contradictory signals if he puts enough pressure on Carlos to increase the cognitive dissonance, since this situation would have an effect on his gestures, his tone of voice or his statements. In the words of Festinger himself, “People feel uncomfortable when we simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs or when our beliefs are not in harmony with what we do” .

The psychologist, author of the book “Expressed emotions, overcome emotions” , adds that due to cognitive dissonance, “Discomfort is usually accompanied by feelings of guilt, anger, frustration or shame” .

The classic example of the smoker

A classic example when talking about cognitive dissonance is that of smokers. We all know that smoking can cause cancer, respiratory problems, chronic fatigue and even death. But, why do people, knowing all these pernicious effects that smoke causes, still smoke?

Knowing that smoking is so harmful to health but continuing to smoke produces a state of dissonance between two cognitions: “I must be healthy” and “smoking is harmful to my health” . But instead of quitting or feeling bad because they smoke, smokers can look for self-justifications like “what’s the point of living long if you can’t enjoy life” .

This example shows that we often reduce cognitive dissonance by distorting the information we receive. If we are smokers, we do not pay as much attention to the evidence about the relationship between tobacco and cancer . People do not want to hear things that conflict with their deepest beliefs and desires, even though on the same packet of tobacco there is a warning about the seriousness of the issue.

Infidelity and cognitive dissonance

Another clear example of cognitive dissonance is what happens to a person who has been unfaithful. Most individuals claim that they would not be unfaithful and know that they would not like to suffer it in their flesh, yet on many occasions they may become unfaithful. When committing the act of infidelity they usually justify it by telling themselves that the fault lies with the other member of the couple (they no longer treat him/her the same, they spend more time with their friends, etc.), because bearing the weight of having been unfaithful (thinking that the infidelity is from bad people) can cause a lot of suffering.

In fact, after a while, the cognitive dissonance may get worse, and seeing your partner constantly may force you to confess, as you may feel worse and worse. The internal struggle can become so desperate that attempts to justify oneself in this situation can cause serious emotional health problems. Cognitive dissonance, in these cases, can affect different areas of life, such as work, common friendships, etc. Confession may be the only way to get rid of suffering.

When cognitive dissonance occurs due to infidelity, the subject is motivated to reduce it, as it causes him enormous discomfort or anxiety. But when, for different reasons, it is not possible to change the situation (for example by not being able to act on the past), then the individual will try to change his cognitions or the assessment of what he has done. The problem arises because living with that person (his partner) and seeing him/her on a daily basis, the feeling of guilt may end up “killing him/her inside” .