Abstract
In this chapter, the main results of a structuralist analysis of Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance and of a typical dissonance experiment are presented and some methodological problems are discusssed from a structuralist point of view.
The informal set-theoretical axiomatizations of main theory-elements lead to a reduction of some difficulties and ambiguities with Festinger’s terms and relationships. The basic theory-element of dissonance theory does not correspond to the general form of the theory presented by Festinger, but is a considerable simplification thereof.
For each area of application special theory-elements are generated by introducing new terms and special laws. For post-decisional and forced-compliance dissonance, uniqueness constraints and paradigmatic applications are exemplarily specified and it is demonstrated that modifications of the theory resulting from empirical failures lead to theory-elements with restricted sets of objects or less precise substantial laws.
For a precise assessment of the connections between the dissonance theory elements, new kinds of intra-theoretical relations (restriction, simplification, theoretical and non-theoretical enlargement) must be introduced. Like the common structuralist specialization and theoretization relations they are special cases of a general specialization relation. The theory net can be displayed graphically so that both general specializations and temporal developments are represented.
A reconstruction of the most specific theory-element representing the theoretical reference point of an exemplaric dissonance experiment shows that this element results from more general elements by simplifications and specializations, that it does not pertain to single subjects but to artificial systems of at least two experimental groups, that it contains ceteris paribus and probability clauses, and that there are indispensable inter-theoretical links representing ways of operationalization, statistical decision procedures, etc.
As the fundamental law does not contribute at all to the empirical content of the theory, empirical research can not be aimed at corroborating or falsifying the theory in general. Instead, it should lead to new delimitations of the sets of successful and unsuccessful applications, to modifications of special laws and to the introduction of new theory-elements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In R.P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W.J. McGuire, T.M. Newcomb, M.J. Rosenberg & P.H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 5–27). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Balzer, W. (1982). Empirische Theorien: Modelle - Strukturen - Beispiele. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Balzer, W. (1983). Theory and measurement. Erkenntnis, 19, 3–25.
Balzer, W., & Moulines, C.U. (1980). On theoreticity. Synthese, 44, 467–494.
Balzer, W., Moulines, C.U., & Sneed, J.D. (1987). An architectonic for science. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Balzer, W., & Sneed, J.D. (1977, 1978). Generalized net-structures of empirical theories. Studia Logica, 36, 195–211, 37, 167–194.
Beckmann, J., & Irle, M. (1985). Dissonance and action control. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Bramel, D. (1968). Dissonance, expectation, and the self. In R.P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W.J. McGuire, T.M. Newcomb, M.J. Rosenberg & P.H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 355–365). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Brehm, J.W. (1956). Post decision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384–389.
Brehm, J.W., & Cohen, A.R. (1959). Re-evaluation of choice alternatives as a function of their number and qualitative similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 373–378.
Brehm, J.W., & Cohen, A.R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: Wiley.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R.H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 17 (pp. 229–266). New York: Academic Press.
Diederich, W. (1981). Strukturalistische Rekonstruktionen. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L. (Ed.) (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210.
Frey, D. (1978). Die Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz. In D. Frey (Ed.), Kognitive Theorien der Sozialpsychologie (pp. 243–292). Bern: Huber.
Frey, D., & Irle, M. (1972). Some conditions to produce a dissonance and an incentive effect in a “forced-compliance” situation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 45–54.
Frey, D., Irle, M., Möntmann, V., Kumpf, M., Ochsmann, R., & Sauer, C. (1982). Cognitive dissonance: Experiments and theory. In M. Irle (Ed.), Studies in decision making (pp. 281–310). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gergen, K.J. (1984). Theory of the self: Impasse and evolution. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 17 (pp. 49–115). New York: Academic Press.
Irle, M., & Möntmann, V. (1978). Die Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz: Ein Resümee ihrer theoretischen Entwicklung und empirischen Ergebnisse 1957 – 1976. In L. Festinger, Theorie der kognitiven Dissonanz (pp. 274–413). Bern: Huber.
Janis, I.L., & King, B.T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211–218.
Johansson, I. (1980). Ceteris paribus clauses, closure clauses and falsifiability. Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 11, 16–22.
Kelman, H.C. (1953). Attitude change as a function of response restriction. Human Relations, 6, 185–214.
Kihlstrom, J.F., & Cantor, N. (1984). Mental representation of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 17 (pp. 1–47). New York: Academic Press.
King, B.T., & Janis, I.L. (1956). Comparison of the effectiveness of improvised versus non-improvised role-playing in producing opinion changes. Human Relations, 9, 177–186.
Krause, M.S. (1972). An analysis of Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory. Philosophy of Science, 39, 32–50.
Nel, E., Helmreich, R., & Aronson, E. (1969). Opinion change in the advocate as a function of the persuasibility of his audience: A clarification of the meaning of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 117–124.
Popper, K.R. (1975). The logic of scientific discovery (8th ed.). London: Hutchinson.
Rosenberg, M., & Kaplan, H.B. (Eds.) (1982). Social psychology of the self-concept. Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan Davidson.
Secord, P.E. (1986). Explanation in the social sciences and in life situations. In D.W. Fiske & R.A. Shweder (Eds.), Metatheory in social science (pp. 197–221). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sneed, J.D. ( 1971). The logical structure of mathematical physics (1st ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel. (2nd ed. published 1979)
Sneed, J.D. (1976). Philosophical problems in the empirical science of science: A formal approach. Erkenntnis, 10, 115–146.
Stegmüller, W. (1976). The structure and dynamics of theories. Berlin: Springer-Verlag (Original work published 1973).
Stegmüller, W. (1979). The structuralist view of theories. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Stegmüller, W. (1986). Theorie und Erfahrung: Dritter Teilband. Die Entwicklung des neuen Strukturalismus seit 1973. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Steyer, R. (1985). The theory of causal regressive dependencies: An overview. Trierer Psychologische Berichte, 12
Suppes, P., & Zinnes, J.L. (1963). Basic measurement theory. In R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology: Vol. 1 (pp. 1–76). New York: Wiley.
Westermann, R. (1987). Strukturalistische Theorienkonzeption und empirische Forschung in der Psychologic Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Westermann, R. (1988). Structuralist reconstruction of psychological research: cognitive dissonance. German Journal of Psychology, 12, 218–231.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Westermann, R. (1989). Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. In: Westmeyer, H. (eds) Psychological Theories from a Structuralist Point of View. Recent Research in Psychology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-84015-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-84015-9_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-51904-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-84015-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive