Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person experiences discomfort due to holding conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. To reduce this discomfort, individuals often try to reconcile these inconsistencies, either by changing their beliefs, justifying their actions, or avoiding information that exacerbates the conflict.
Leon Festinger
Social psychologist Leon Festinger coined the term “cognitive dissonance” in the 1950s in his book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Festinger’s theory describes the discomfort people feel when their beliefs or behaviors contradict each other. He believed that people try to live in harmony, where their actions and belief systems align, and that they don’t like the discomfort that comes from self-contradiction.
Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance has been influential in social psychology and has led to many studies on a variety of topics, including attitudes, values, and decision-making. The theory suggests that people can reduce dissonance in several ways, such as by changing their behavior, their environment, or seeking out new information.
“The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance. When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.” – Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, 1957“I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of non-fitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in its own right. By the term cognition, I mean any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one’s behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition that leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction, just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction.” – Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, 1957
It has frequently been implied, and sometimes even pointed out, that the individual strives toward consistency within himself. His opinions and attitudes, for example, tend to exist in clusters that are internally consistent.
There is the same kind of consistency between what a person knows or believes and what he does. A person may know that smoking is bad for him and yet continue to smoke. Granting that consistency is the usual thing, perhaps overwhelmingly so, what about these exceptions which come to mind so readily? Only rarely, if ever, are they accepted psychologically as inconsistencies by the person involved. Usually, more or less successful attempts are made to rationalize them.
Thus, the person who continues to smoke, knowing that it is bad for his health, may also feel (a) he enjoys smoking so much it is worth it; (b) the chances of his health suffering are not as serious as some would make out; (c) he can’t always avoid every possible dangerous contingency and still live; and (d) perhaps even if he stopped smoking, he would put on weight which is equally bad for his health. So, continuing to smoke is, after all, consistent with his ideas about smoking.
But persons are not always successful in explaining away or in rationalizing inconsistencies to themselves. For one reason or another, attempts to achieve consistency may fail. The inconsistency then simply continues to exist. Under such circumstances–that is, in the presence of an inconsistency–there is psychological discomfort.
The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance. When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information that would likely increase the dissonance.
In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of non-fitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in its own right. By the term cognition, I mean any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one’s behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition that leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction, just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction.
Sprouts: Cognitive Dissonance; Your Response to Conflicting Beliefs – Educational Video
Cognitive dissonance is based on the idea that when two ideas are psychologically not consistent with each other, we change them and make them consistent. If the two conflicting ideas are deeply ingrained in our identity, this mental imbalance can become overwhelming and intoxicate our thoughts — and as a result we may believe even the most absurd conspiracy theories.
If you read a text or hear something new, your mind has a strong desire for order and consistency. Now, the moment your brain holds two contradicting ideas, you experience distress. Your mind often resolves this problem, by tweaking the ideas until they become consistent with the other stories you tell yourself to be true.
Here’s another example of how we deal with cognitive dissonance, even subconsciously.
Consider that you have a job where the hours are long, the pay is mediocre, and nobody respects the work you’re doing. Why would you freely be choosing to work there? You might respond by saying that you need the flexible hours the job gives you, or you don’t think you could get a job elsewhere, or whatever else… but what are you actually doing?
Because you’re in an absurd situation, your mind is rationalising it by inventing a comfortable illusion. This is how biases in social psychology work.
The theory of cognitive dissonance refers to how we seek consistency amongst our beliefs or opinions (referred to as our cognitions). Looking at the work of social psychologist, Leon Festinger, we need that consistency to function mentally in the real world. When there is inconsistency between our cognitions (referred to as ‘dissonance’), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. The dissonance reduction and forced compliance is required to preserve our mental health. We need to rationalise the situation in some way or another to eliminate that dissonance.
So, we tell ourselves that another job will not be as flexible. We tell ourselves that there’s nothing else out there. We create a logical fallacy using cognitive biases creating yet another example of cognitive dissonance.
It’s a mental conflict that we experience. We’re being presented with evidence that our assumptions or beliefs are incorrect, and because we as humans tend to exhibit a strong degree of self-denial, we need to do something to eliminate that conflict (called cognitive dissonance). The scariest part is all the ways in which we can be convincing to ourselves, particularly with biased decision making.
A Mormon faith crisis occurs when a church member begins to confront deeply conflicting thoughts and emotions about the teachings and history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church). For many members, the foundational belief that “the church is true” underpins their entire life—shaping their identity, relationships, and decisions. However, when they encounter information suggesting that the church has not been fully transparent about its history or doctrines, this belief comes under intense scrutiny, leading to a profound sense of disorientation and emotional turmoil. This is often referred to as a crisis of faith in the individual but should be referred to, more accurately, as a truth crisis from the church.
This experience can be better understood through the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance, which describes the mental discomfort that arises when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or ideas simultaneously. In the context of a Mormon faith crisis, cognitive dissonance occurs when the longstanding belief in the church’s truthfulness and goodness clashes with the emerging realization that the church may have concealed or misrepresented aspects of its history or teachings. This dissonance is not just a simple conflict of ideas—it can feel like an existential crisis because it challenges the very foundation of the member’s life, relationships, identity, and worldview. The resulting psychological stress often compels individuals to seek resolution, either by reaffirming their faith, reinterpreting their beliefs, or, in some cases, stepping away from the church entirely. This process is painful, as it involves questioning everything that once seemed certain and secure.
People can hold very strong core beliefs. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the evidence cannot be accepted. It creates an extremely uncomfortable feeling called cognitive dissonance. It is so important to protect these core beliefs that people will rationalize, ignore, and even deny any information that doesn’t fit within their core belief.
Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.
Unknown/Anonymous
This statement is often misattributed to Franz Fanon, in his 1952 book Black Skin, White Masks. While it is a nice succinct statement that explains cognitive dissonance and the rationalizations many find when this involves a ‘core belief’. The theory wasn’t even introduced until Leon Festinger’s publication in 1957.
Those who reaffirm their faith tend to use confirmation biases to help us avoid cognitive dissonance. They find new information or new ways to interpret information to expel the dissonance and continue on with their Mormon life.
A silent factor here is the challenge of cognitive dissonance–holding two competing beliefs at once. This is uncomfortable, so when considering ‘what’s real,’ we tend to cling to one and pitch the other, then scour data to prove that we are right. This can result in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, where you essentially will your biases and insecurities into existence.
Others though, who truly seek truth and analyze evidence, will find that the church is not what it claims to be. The dissonance is relieved when the truthfulness of the church and the Mormon worldview is released, and replaced with facts. These individuals (and families) find real inner peace as they align their personal lives with their knowledge and arrive at moral integrity.
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or he will cease being honest.
Have you experienced cognitive dissonance? Have you experienced the cognitive dissonance felt when questioning, doubting, or deconstructing your Mormon faith? What did you do to alleviate the inconsistencies and dissonance in yourself? Did you reconcile things with the church or with the truth? Consider joining the movement and sharing your “I was a Mormon” story at wasmormon.org!
