Cognitive dissonance: WACE Year 12 Psychology Unit 3
“Explain Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, including the conditions that produce dissonance and the strategies used to reduce it”
Cognitive dissonance, proposed by Leon Festinger, is the uncomfortable tension we feel when we hold two inconsistent cognitions or act against our attitudes; to reduce this discomfort we change one of the cognitions, add a new justifying cognition, or reduce the importance of the conflict, often changing our attitude to match our behaviour.
Jump to a section
Cognitive dissonance is not part of the SCSA Psychology ATAR Year 12 syllabus (Units 3 and 4, taught since 2024), so this page is not examined in the WACE Psychology ATAR exam. Festinger's theory, including Festinger and Carlsmith (1959), is now in the Year 11 syllabus (Unit 2: Attitudes, stereotypes and social influence). For the nearest Year 12 content, see sources of motivation.
What this dot point is asking
SCSA asks you to define cognitive dissonance, explain what produces it, list the strategies used to reduce it, and apply the theory to examples and to Festinger and Carlsmith's classic study. The marked skill is showing how behaviour can change attitudes, not just the reverse.
What cognitive dissonance is
Leon Festinger proposed that people seek consistency among their beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. When we notice an inconsistency, we experience cognitive dissonance, an uncomfortable state of psychological tension. Because this tension is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce it and restore consistency.
Dissonance is strongest when the inconsistency involves important attitudes, when we feel personally responsible for the behaviour, and when we cannot easily justify what we did with an external reason.
Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that arises from holding two or more contradictory cognitions, or from acting in a way that conflicts with one's attitudes. The discomfort acts as a drive that motivates the person to reduce the inconsistency.
Strategies for reducing dissonance
There are three broad ways to relieve dissonance.
- Change one of the cognitions, usually by altering the attitude to match the behaviour. A smoker who keeps smoking may decide the health risks are exaggerated.
- Add a new cognition that justifies or outweighs the inconsistency. The smoker may tell themselves that smoking relieves stress and that stress is also harmful.
- Reduce the importance of the conflict, by deciding the issue does not matter much. The smoker may decide that life is short and enjoyment matters more.
A common pattern is that behaviour changes attitudes: when we cannot undo an action, we adjust our attitude so it no longer clashes with what we did.
Festinger and Carlsmith's study
Festinger and Carlsmith asked participants to perform a deliberately boring task, then to tell a waiting person that the task was enjoyable. Some were paid 1 dollar to lie and others were paid 20 dollars.
Afterwards, those paid only 1 dollar rated the task as more enjoyable than those paid 20 dollars. The reason is dissonance. Those paid 20 dollars had a strong external justification for lying, so they felt little inconsistency. Those paid only 1 dollar had no good external reason, so they reduced their dissonance by changing their attitude to genuinely believe the task was interesting.
The counterintuitive result is that the smaller reward produced greater attitude change. With little external justification for lying, participants had to resolve the dissonance internally, shifting their genuine attitude to match what they had said.
Justifying an expensive choice
A buyer spends far more than planned on a phone. Afterwards they feel uneasy: the cognition I am careful with money clashes with I just overspent.
To reduce dissonance they might change a cognition (deciding the phone was worth every cent), add a justifying cognition (it will last for years and saves buying a separate camera), or reduce the importance of the conflict (deciding budgeting is not that serious right now).
This post-decision dissonance reduction is why people often praise a product more strongly after buying it.
Why cognitive dissonance matters
Cognitive dissonance explains attitude change, persuasion, the justification of effort (we value things more when we have suffered to get them), and why small commitments can lead to larger attitude shifts. It links the attitudes topic to social influence, because compliance with a request can quietly reshape what people genuinely believe.
- Defining dissonance as the inconsistency itself
- Dissonance is the uncomfortable feeling caused by inconsistency, not the inconsistency alone.
- Missing that behaviour can change attitudes
- A key insight is that when behaviour cannot be undone, people change their attitude to match it.
- Misreading the Festinger and Carlsmith result
- The lower payment produced more attitude change because it gave less external justification, leaving more dissonance to resolve internally.
- Listing only one reduction strategy
- Strong answers note that dissonance can be reduced by changing a cognition, adding a cognition, or downplaying the conflict.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of SCSA exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Original5 marksDefine cognitive dissonance and describe three strategies a person could use to reduce it, using an example of a smoker who continues to smoke.Show worked answer →
A 5 mark answer needs the definition plus three reduction strategies applied to the example.
Definition. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort that arises from holding two contradictory cognitions, or from acting against one's attitudes. The discomfort motivates the person to reduce it.
Strategies (applied). First, change a cognition: the smoker decides the health risks are exaggerated. Second, add a new justifying cognition: smoking relieves stress, and stress is also harmful. Third, reduce the importance of the conflict: life is short and enjoyment matters more.
Markers reward a definition that names the discomfort (not just the inconsistency) and three distinct strategies clearly tied to the smoker example.
Original7 marksExplain the findings of Festinger and Carlsmith's induced-compliance study and use them to explain why a smaller reward can produce greater attitude change.Show worked answer →
A 7 mark extended response needs the study, the result, and the dissonance explanation.
- Procedure
- Participants completed a deliberately boring task, then were paid either one dollar or twenty dollars to tell a waiting person the task was enjoyable.
- Finding
- Those paid only one dollar later rated the task as more enjoyable than those paid twenty dollars.
- Explanation
- Participants paid twenty dollars had strong external justification for lying, so they felt little dissonance and their attitude did not change. Those paid one dollar had insufficient external justification, creating dissonance between the task was boring and I said it was fun. To reduce this, they changed their attitude to genuinely believe the task was interesting.
- Conclusion
- Markers reward the counterintuitive principle that less external justification produces more dissonance and therefore more attitude change, and that behaviour can drive attitude change.