Cognitive Dissonance: Definition, Examples, Causes and How to Overcome It
Updated: Oct 17
“The consciousness in you and the consciousness in me, apparently two,
really one, seek unity and that is love.”
― NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ
Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that occurs when a person’s beliefs, values, attitudes or actions conflict with one another. First proposed by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957, the theory explains why people often justify their decisions, change their attitudes or modify their behaviour to reduce this discomfort and restore a sense of consistency.
What Is Cognitive Dissonance in Psychology?
Human beings generally prefer consistency between what they believe, what they value and how they behave. When these elements contradict one another, the resulting psychological tension is known as cognitive dissonance.
For example, a person may believe that smoking is harmful to their health while continuing to smoke. Their knowledge of the health risks conflicts with their behaviour, creating a psychological tension that they may attempt to resolve by quitting smoking, minimising the risks or justifying their actions.
Psychiatrist Grant H. Brenner, MD, FAPA, has discussed cognitive dissonance as an uncomfortable state arising when a person’s values, attitudes or perspectives contradict one another. The intensity of this discomfort can vary depending on the importance of the conflicting beliefs and the individual’s response to the inconsistency.
Cognitive dissonance does not necessarily mean that a person is irrational or dishonest. It is a psychological process that can influence how people interpret information, evaluate their choices and respond to situations that challenge their existing beliefs.
How Does Cognitive Dissonance Work?
Cognitive dissonance typically involves three interconnected elements:
Belief: What a person thinks or considers to be true.
Behaviour: What a person actually does.
Discomfort: The tension experienced when the belief and behaviour are inconsistent.
Consider someone who believes that physical exercise is essential for good health but regularly avoids exercising. Recognising the discrepancy may produce guilt or discomfort. The person might begin exercising, reconsider the importance they place on exercise or justify their inactivity by emphasising other healthy habits.
The way the person responds determines whether the inconsistency leads to behavioural change, a shift in attitude or further rationalisation.
What Are Some Examples of Cognitive Dissonance?
Cognitive dissonance can occur in everyday situations involving health, relationships, work, personal values and decision-making.
Examples
Smoking - A person believes smoking is harmful but continues smoking. They may minimise the risks or attempt to quit.
Exercise - Someone values physical fitness but repeatedly avoids exercise. They may make an exercise plan or justify their inactivity.
Spending - A person wants to save money but makes an expensive, unnecessary purchase. They may justify the purchase as a reward or an investment.
Social pressure - Someone disagrees with their friends’ behaviour but participates to gain acceptance.They may change their behaviour or convince themselves that the action was acceptable.
Environmental responsibility - A person believes in reducing emissions but regularly chooses unnecessarily high-emission activities.They may change their habits or downplay their environmental impact.
These examples illustrate how a discrepancy between beliefs and actions can motivate people to restore psychological consistency. However, the same behaviour can have different explanations, and a single example does not automatically establish that cognitive dissonance is occurring.
What Is an Example of Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life?
Imagine a person who has decided to save money for an important future goal. One evening, their friends invite them to an expensive outing. Although the person knows that spending the money conflicts with their savings goal, they decide to join them.
Afterwards, they may experience discomfort and think, “I deserved a break,” or “One expensive evening will not make a difference.”
These explanations may reduce the immediate discomfort without resolving the underlying conflict. Alternatively, the person might acknowledge the decision, adjust their budget and make a more deliberate choice the next time a similar situation arises.
The important distinction is that cognitive dissonance concerns the psychological tension created by the inconsistency, while the justification is one possible response to that tension.
Who Developed the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance?
Psychologist Leon Festinger introduced the theory of cognitive dissonance in his influential 1957 book, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Festinger proposed that people are motivated to maintain consistency among their cognitions, including their beliefs, opinions, attitudes and knowledge about their own behaviour. When two cognitions contradict one another, or when behaviour conflicts with an important belief, the resulting dissonance can motivate people to reduce the inconsistency.
Festinger compared this motivational process to hunger: just as hunger motivates behaviour directed towards obtaining food, cognitive dissonance can motivate behaviour directed towards reducing psychological tension.
His theory became an important contribution to social psychology because it offered an explanation for why people sometimes change their attitudes after making decisions, defend choices that have disappointed them or resist information that challenges their existing beliefs.
What Are the Common Signs of Cognitive Dissonance?
Cognitive dissonance is not a diagnosis, and there is no single feeling or behaviour that proves a person is experiencing it. Nevertheless, certain experiences may indicate a conflict between personal beliefs and actions.
1. Psychological Discomfort
A person may experience uneasiness, tension or persistent doubt after making a decision that conflicts with their values. For example, someone who values honesty but tells a lie may feel uncomfortable because their behaviour contradicts their self-image.
2. Rationalisation
Rationalisation occurs when a person develops explanations to make a questionable decision appear more reasonable or consistent with their beliefs.
Someone who makes an impulsive purchase despite wanting to save money might say, “It was on sale, so I actually saved money.” The explanation may contain some truth, but it can also serve to reduce the discomfort associated with the original decision.
3. Avoiding Conflicting Information
People may avoid information that challenges their existing beliefs or seek out information that supports their preferred viewpoint. For instance, a person who strongly believes that a particular habit is harmless may dismiss credible evidence of its risks rather than reconsider their position.
This response is not inevitable, but it illustrates how discomfort can influence the information people are willing to consider.
4. Guilt, Shame or Regret
When a person’s behaviour conflicts with deeply held moral or personal values, they may experience guilt, shame or regret. For example, someone who values kindness but behaves cruelly towards another person may feel distressed by the discrepancy. These emotions can encourage reflection and corrective action, although they can also lead to defensiveness or avoidance.
5. Repeatedly Justifying a Decision
A person may repeatedly explain why a decision was correct, particularly when they feel uncertain about whether they made the right choice. This can occur after choosing a job, buying an expensive product or ending a relationship. However, reconsidering a decision is not necessarily evidence of cognitive dissonance; people may simply be evaluating the consequences of their choices.
6. Conflict Between Personal Values and Social Expectations
A person may act against their beliefs to avoid rejection, criticism or confrontation. For example, an individual who disagrees with a group’s decision might remain silent to preserve their relationships. If the person also values honesty and speaking up, the choice to remain silent may create an internal conflict.
An important distinction: Anxiety, guilt, shame and avoidance can arise for many reasons. These experiences should be understood in context rather than treated as definitive signs of cognitive dissonance.
What Are the Effects of Cognitive Dissonance?
Cognitive dissonance can influence emotions, self-perception, attitudes and decision-making. Its effects depend on the importance of the conflicting beliefs, the circumstances surrounding the behaviour and the way a person responds to the inconsistency.
Common emotional responses may include:
Anxiety or uneasiness.
Embarrassment.
Guilt or regret.
Shame.
Sadness.
Psychological stress.
When the inconsistency involves a central aspect of a person’s identity, the discomfort may be particularly significant. For instance, someone who sees themselves as compassionate may find it difficult to reconcile that self-image with behaviour that has harmed another person. Cognitive dissonance can also influence how people evaluate their past decisions. Rather than acknowledging that a choice was mistaken, they may emphasise its advantages or reinterpret the circumstances to make the decision seem more reasonable.
However, cognitive dissonance is not exclusively negative. Recognising a conflict between values and actions can encourage people to reconsider their assumptions, develop greater self-awareness and make changes that better reflect their priorities.
What Causes Cognitive Dissonance?
Leon Festinger’s theory helps explain several situations in which cognitive dissonance may arise. Three particularly important examples are forced compliance, effort justification and decision-making.
1. Forced Compliance: Why Do People Act Against Their Beliefs?
Forced compliance occurs when a person engages in behaviour that conflicts with their beliefs because of external pressure or expectations. For example, an employee may be asked to promote a product using claims they do not personally believe. The employee may comply because they fear losing their job, even though the action conflicts with their values.This situation can create dissonance when the individual feels responsible for an action that contradicts their beliefs.
Possible responses include:
Changing the behaviour and refusing to make misleading claims.
Reconsidering the belief or attitude that created the conflict.
Justifying the behaviour by emphasising external pressure or the perceived necessity of complying.
The response depends partly on the circumstances, the person’s sense of responsibility and the extent to which they believe they had a choice.
2. Effort Justification: Why Do We Value Things We Work Hard For?
Effort justification refers to the tendency to increase the perceived value of an outcome when substantial effort has been invested in obtaining it.
Imagine someone who spends several years working towards a qualification, only to discover that the experience was disappointing. Accepting that the outcome did not justify the effort may be uncomfortable. The person may respond by emphasising what they learned, highlighting the benefits of the qualification or convincing themselves that the experience was more valuable than it initially seemed. This process can reduce dissonance by making the effort appear worthwhile.
However, effort does not automatically make an outcome more valuable. The important question is whether the person is evaluating the outcome realistically or defending it primarily because they have already invested time, money or energy in it.
3. Decision-Making: Why Do We Justify Our Choices?
Most meaningful decisions involve choosing between alternatives, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Selecting one option means giving up the benefits associated with another. This can produce post-decisional dissonance, particularly when the alternatives are similarly attractive or the decision has significant consequences.
Consider someone choosing between two jobs:
Job A: Offers a higher salary but requires relocating far from family and friends.
Job B: Offers a lower salary but allows the person to remain close to their support system.
Job A may support long-term financial goals, while Job B may better meet the person’s social and emotional priorities.
After choosing Job A, the person may focus on the financial opportunities it provides while minimising the importance of being near family. If they choose Job B, they may emphasise the value of their relationships while downplaying the financial benefits they have given up.
Some reconsideration is perfectly reasonable. The conflict becomes relevant to cognitive dissonance when the person experiences psychological tension and changes their evaluations or beliefs to make the decision feel more consistent.
How Can Cognitive Dissonance Be Reduced?
Cognitive dissonance can be reduced in several ways. The most appropriate response depends on whether the conflicting belief is accurate, whether the behaviour can be changed and what matters most to the individual.
1. Change the Behaviour
One direct way to reduce dissonance is to change the behaviour that conflicts with an important belief. For example, someone who believes smoking is harmful but continues to smoke may decide to quit or seek appropriate support to help them stop.
Similarly, a person who values physical fitness but struggles to exercise regularly could establish a realistic routine that fits their circumstances. Behavioural change can be challenging, especially when habits, addiction, social pressure or practical constraints are involved. Recognising these barriers is an important part of developing a sustainable response.
2. Change the Conflicting Belief or Attitude
Sometimes, new information leads a person to reconsider a belief. For example, someone may initially believe that asking for help demonstrates weakness. After recognising that seeking support can be a constructive response to difficult circumstances, they may revise their attitude. Changing a belief is not inherently a problem. It can represent learning and personal growth, provided the change reflects thoughtful consideration rather than an attempt to dismiss uncomfortable evidence.
3. Add Information That Helps Reconcile the Conflict
People may seek additional information that helps them understand an apparent contradiction. For example, someone who values environmental responsibility but needs to drive for work might consider the practical constraints involved and explore ways to reduce their environmental impact. The aim should be to understand the situation more accurately, not simply to find arguments that excuse every inconsistency.
4. Reconsider the Importance of the Conflicting Belief
Another response is to reconsider how important a particular belief is in the circumstances. Suppose someone who values healthy eating chooses a less nutritious meal during an unusually demanding day. They may recognise that one meal does not define their overall eating habits. This can be a reasonable perspective if it reflects a balanced understanding of the situation. However, repeatedly dismissing a genuinely important value can preserve the conflict rather than resolve it.
5. Acknowledge the Conflict Without Immediately Defending the Decision
A useful first step is to recognise the discrepancy between what you believe and what you do. Instead of immediately explaining away a decision, ask yourself:
What do I believe in this situation?
How does my behaviour differ from that belief?
Why did I act this way?
Was my decision influenced by pressure, habit, fear or convenience?
Is there anything I would like to change?
These questions can help separate genuine constraints from assumptions or justifications that may no longer serve you.
How Can Cognitive Dissonance Encourage Personal Growth?
Cognitive dissonance can become an opportunity for self-reflection when people respond to discomfort with curiosity rather than defensiveness.Consider someone who regularly tells others that physical health is important but rarely makes time for exercise. The inconsistency may prompt them to examine their priorities, identify practical barriers and establish a more realistic routine.
Similarly, someone who values honesty but avoids difficult conversations may begin to recognise how the desire to avoid conflict influences their behaviour. In both cases, the aim is not to eliminate every inconsistency in life. People have competing responsibilities, limited resources and circumstances in which perfect consistency is impossible.
Instead, the goal is to become more aware of the choices being made and to respond to important conflicts thoughtfully.
A practical approach involves four steps:
1. Recognise: Identify the discrepancy between your belief and behaviour.
2. Reflect: Understand the reasons behind the inconsistency.
3. Evaluate: Decide whether your belief, behaviour or understanding of the situation needs to change.
4. Act: Take a realistic step towards resolving the conflict.
This process encourages people to learn from their decisions without relying exclusively on self-criticism or self-justification.
What Is the Difference Between Cognitive Dissonance and Hypocrisy?
Cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy are related concepts, but they are not interchangeable.
Cognitive dissonance describes the psychological discomfort that can arise from conflicting beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Hypocrisy generally refers to a discrepancy between the standards a person publicly promotes and their own actions. For example, someone who encourages others to exercise regularly but never exercises themselves may appear hypocritical.
If that person recognises the inconsistency and feels uncomfortable about it, they may also experience cognitive dissonance.
However, hypocrisy does not necessarily mean the individual is experiencing conscious discomfort, and cognitive dissonance can occur without any public declaration of values.
Conclusion: Why Does Cognitive Dissonance Matter?
Cognitive dissonance offers an important explanation for how people respond when their beliefs, values, attitudes and actions conflict. The discomfort associated with these inconsistencies can influence how they make decisions, interpret information and evaluate themselves.Sometimes, people resolve the tension through rationalisation or by dismissing information that challenges their existing beliefs. At other times, they change their behaviour, reconsider their attitudes or develop a more nuanced understanding of the situation.
Consider the familiar story of the fox who cannot reach a bunch of grapes. Unable to obtain them, the fox concludes that the grapes are probably sour anyway. Rather than accepting the disappointment of being unable to reach the grapes, the fox changes their evaluation of the desired outcome.This story illustrates a form of rationalisation that can resemble dissonance reduction: changing one’s interpretation of an outcome to make an uncomfortable situation easier to accept.
The broader lesson is that psychological consistency is not always achieved by changing our behaviour. Sometimes, we change the way we think about our behaviour instead.
Recognising cognitive dissonance allows us to ask a more useful question: are we changing our beliefs because we have learned something new, or are we changing them simply because the truth is uncomfortable? The answer can help us make more considered decisions, understand our own motivations and bring our actions into closer alignment with the values that matter to us.
⸻
About the author
Anil Thomas is an author, trainer, and practitioner in Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and Gestalt Psychology, dedicated to exploring human behaviour and making psychological concepts practical, accessible, and meaningful through his books, research, podcasts, and training programmes.