Friday, October 15, 2010
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Cognitive Dissonance is a state of conflict in the mind, whereby you have two opposing views at the same time. It can also be referred to as a feeling of uncomfortable anxiety which comes from having two contradictory perspectives of the same thing at once. The theory suggests that the mind naturally wants to eliminate dissonance where possible and this can be done through changing the way you feel about or perceive certain things (changing your attitudes and beliefs). Cognitive Dissonance is normally strongest when we think about ourselves in a certain way, then do something to oppose that belief.
For example, if one thinks he is an animal lover, and then kicks a cat in the street for getting in his way, there will be a huge level of tension in his mind. To reduce this, the mind will change his beliefs and attitude, or blame, deny or justify by saying:
• "The cat deserved it for running in front of a larger animal (him)."
• "The cat must be stupid anyway for running into me."
• "Cats are my least favorite animal anyway."
• "The cat might have caused me further trouble if I hadn't scared it off"
• "The cat walked into my foot; I didn't kick it!"
Although he might have originally disagreed with these statements, his mind justifies his actions to reduce dissonance.
The second example is what we have experienced in every day life, in most organizations people have lunch time which is always an hour, but some people actually go for an hour and a half. Rather than believing that they are stealing by getting paid for the time they didn't work for, they justify it by saying they overworked and deserve the extra time off.
Another good example could be a buyers' remorse, let say someone just bought a brand new car, she might think that she spent much more money than she should have and feels regretful and actually a little embarrassed as well. Rather than continue feeling these undesirable emotions, she will decides that the car is less likely to break down than her older one, and will actually save her loads of cash in the long run. Besides, the car is much more attractive so people will like her more and maybe she will even make them jealous. In that way she has reduced the dissonance.
Another interesting example of cognition dissonance is the example we took from the Smart People for Communications group (our class mate) which is of the situation of a woman who values financial security and she is in a relationship with a man who is financially irresponsible.They suggest that the conflict this woman may undergo is how important it is for her to be financially secure and seeing a man who is financially unstable. This will make her uncomfortable therefore in order to reduce the dissonance she can decide what is more important to her the: the man or the financial security. If she chooses to leave the relationship she reduces the dissonance but she can also ignore the flaws her man has and stay in the relationship.
This is all we have compiled in the cognitive dissonance theory.
References
2. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/124498/cognitive-dissonance
3. http://smartpeopleforcommunication.blogspot.com/
For example, if one thinks he is an animal lover, and then kicks a cat in the street for getting in his way, there will be a huge level of tension in his mind. To reduce this, the mind will change his beliefs and attitude, or blame, deny or justify by saying:
• "The cat deserved it for running in front of a larger animal (him)."
• "The cat must be stupid anyway for running into me."
• "Cats are my least favorite animal anyway."
• "The cat might have caused me further trouble if I hadn't scared it off"
• "The cat walked into my foot; I didn't kick it!"
Although he might have originally disagreed with these statements, his mind justifies his actions to reduce dissonance.
The second example is what we have experienced in every day life, in most organizations people have lunch time which is always an hour, but some people actually go for an hour and a half. Rather than believing that they are stealing by getting paid for the time they didn't work for, they justify it by saying they overworked and deserve the extra time off.
Another good example could be a buyers' remorse, let say someone just bought a brand new car, she might think that she spent much more money than she should have and feels regretful and actually a little embarrassed as well. Rather than continue feeling these undesirable emotions, she will decides that the car is less likely to break down than her older one, and will actually save her loads of cash in the long run. Besides, the car is much more attractive so people will like her more and maybe she will even make them jealous. In that way she has reduced the dissonance.
Another interesting example of cognition dissonance is the example we took from the Smart People for Communications group (our class mate) which is of the situation of a woman who values financial security and she is in a relationship with a man who is financially irresponsible.They suggest that the conflict this woman may undergo is how important it is for her to be financially secure and seeing a man who is financially unstable. This will make her uncomfortable therefore in order to reduce the dissonance she can decide what is more important to her the: the man or the financial security. If she chooses to leave the relationship she reduces the dissonance but she can also ignore the flaws her man has and stay in the relationship.
This is all we have compiled in the cognitive dissonance theory.
References
2. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/124498/cognitive-dissonance
3. http://smartpeopleforcommunication.blogspot.com/
THEORY
The definition of theory
Set of assumptions, propositions, or accepted facts that attempts to provide a plausible or rational explanation of cause-and-effect (causal) relationships among a group of observed phenomenon.
The difference between theory and practice
In theory the difference between practice and theory is due to practical considerations that theorists find it impractical to fit into their theories.
A theory is an idea and hypothesis which explains some things or is where you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is an exercise and application of any task or theory or in other words translation of an idea into action or where everything works but nobody knows why.
Practice is an exercise and application of any task or theory or in other words translation of an idea into action or where everything works but nobody knows why.
In practice, theory uses the practice of theorizing about practical matters, while not noticing that the theoretical method practically distorts the theory beyond application to practice.
Theoretically then the practical facts are that the theory is in practice good for predicting what happens in theory, but impractical as a theory with direct implications for practice, except where theory states that the practice is sufficiently close to the theory to make any difference for all practical purposes theoretically zero.
Theoretically then the practical facts are that the theory is in practice good for predicting what happens in theory, but impractical as a theory with direct implications for practice, except where theory states that the practice is sufficiently close to the theory to make any difference for all practical purposes theoretically zero.
The levels of generality in theory
Grand theories (universal)They explain communication as universally. Marxism Attempts to unify all knowledge of communication and integrates all communication knowledge into one theoretical framework. In most aspect they focus on all people.
Mid-range theory
It explains behaviors of people within a specific situation. Is a theory with limited scope that explains a specific set of phenomena. It only applies to certain people. It further explains a focused phenomenon on communication behaviors. For example, the Uncertainty reduction theory (people's first encounter with strangers) and Groupthink.
Narrow theory
It explains a very limited aspect of a phenomenon such as communication and it concerns certain individuals in certain situation. For example, an intrapersonal theory about life.
References
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Groupthink Theory
Groupthink theory is a study on group decision making developed by Irving Janis. This theory is based on social behavior in which maintaining the group cohesiveness and solidarity is felt as more important than considering the fact in a realistic manner. Janis defined groupthink a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action” (Janis, 1982, 9).
Groupthink is a result of cohesiveness in group, already discussed by Lewin in the 1980s and is an important factor to consider in decision process.
Let us look at the three critical assumptions that guide the theory:
1. Conditions in groups promote high cohesiveness
This assumption pertains to the characteristic of group life which is cohesiveness. Conditions exist in groups that promote high cohesiveness. Ernest Bormann (1996) observed that group members have common sentiment or emotional investment and as a result they maintain a group identity.
Some people might be wondering what cohesiveness is, therefore it is defined as the extend to which group members are willing to work together. In other words, it is the group’s sense of togetherness and it arises from a group’s attitudes, values and pattern of behavior.
2. Group problem solving is primarily a unified process
This assumption examines the process of problem solving in small groups which is usually the unified undertaking. Members essentially strive to get along and hold their individual inputs rather than risk rejection. According to Gouran, when group members do participate, fearing rejection, they are likely “to attach greater importance to preservation of the group than to the issue under consideration” (P.100)
3. Groups and group decision making are frequently complex
The last assumption underscores the nature of most problem-solving and task-oriented groups to which group members belong. Group members are similar to one another, besides, group decisions are not thoughtfully considered by all which leads to groupthink.
The examples of groupthink
Current examples of groupthink can be found in the decisions of the Bush administration and Congress to pursue an invasion of Iraq based on a policy of “preemptive use of military force against terrorists and rogue nations”. The decision to rush to war in Iraq before a broad-based coalition of allies could be built has placed the US in an unenviable military situation in Iraq that is costly in terms of military deaths and casualties, diplomatic standing in the world, and economically.
Apart from that, the most famous example of Groupthink is the presidential advisory group who almost led Kennedy into invading Cuba and potential nuclear war in the Bay of Pigs affair.
The Challenger disaster was another effect where NASA officials disregarded engineer’s concerns and decided to launch the shuttle.
Critique and closing
Groupthink is a theory dedicated to understanding the decision making process in small groups. Janis believes that groups mostly make decisions with profound consequences, and although he focused his efforts on foreign policy groups, the application of groupthink terminology resonates in many other decision-making groups. Among the criteria for evaluating a theory there is : scope, testability, heurism, and test of time.
Scope
The scope of the theory can be defined as narrow because it can only be applied to the groups that are decision group making but not to every group.
Testability
Some group scholars have appointed to some validity problems with the theory. For example, Jeanne Longley and Dean Pruitt (1980) have criticized it. They argue that half of the symptoms of groupthink are not associated with a key feature of the theory and that the theory should be a logical progression of ideas, not a grab-bag of phenomena. They further noted that Janis incorporates self-esteem in discussions of groupthink but never mentioned it in his theory.
Heurism
This theory is heuristic undertaking; many of its elements have been employed in a number of studies and enjoyed the attention of many communication and social psychology scholars (e.g Cline, 1990, Courtright, 1978: Huiteing Van Kerkhor,& Pesch, 2007; Pauvit & Jonhson, 2002) Reseachers haeve studied groupthink and applied its concepts and tenets to Hurricanes Katrina,1938 Japanese masscre ok Naking.
Test of time
The theory has withstood the test of time. Scholars continue to investigate many of its fundamental features. And it continues to be discussed in the popular medias.
References:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)