1.2.1 Festinger’s cognitive dissonance

Festinger’s [6] theory of cognitive dissonance initially built upon the work of Prasad [7], who observed curious reactions from people in India following a severe earthquake. Individuals who had experienced the shock of the earthquake, but were spared the severity, began to spread rumors that an even worse earthquake was to come. Festinger explained this in terms of what he would later call, insufficient justification [8] -i.e. the people who had been spared disaster had worked themselves into such a frenzy before the earthquake’s arrival, that the benign shocks left them with insufficient justification for the intense fear they had been feeling. Therefore, those people spread rumors to create a physical sense of danger that justified their sense of fear [9].

Cognitive dissonance theory hinges on the notion that individuals have a need to keep their cognitions, beliefs, and behaviors in line with one another; and inconsistencies can create a cognitive discomfort that people will try to alleviate [6]. This definition allows the theory to be applicable in a wide variety of research applications investigating intrapersonal inconsistencies. Festinger [6] specifically outlined three applicational situations-post-decisional dissonance, effort justification, and insufficient justification-which have gone on to be widely studied by the research community with regards to their influences on various aspects of life and decision making [10-13]. While each of Festinger’s proposed experiences have their own unique definitions, they also tend to be researched in terms of what can be deemed dissonance-alleviating responses-which have typically included some sort of shift in an individual’s perceptions and beliefs surrounding different decisions, events, and experiences [6].

Post-decisional and effort justification responses: The identification and classification of cognitive dissonance often has centered around the presence of a dissonance-alleviating response. In the case of post-decisional dissonance, a response arises from the experience of having to choose between two comparable options. To alleviate discomfort stemming from fear one may have “chosen wrong”, individuals tend to reframe the situation in their minds postdecision, in a way that makes the chosen option appear clearly superior to the alternative-even if the two options were equal in functionality [6]. Effort justification refers to the dissonance one experiences when unpleasant tasks must be undertaken to yield desirable outcomes. Such dissonant thoughts commonly center around the question “Was it worth it?”, in which individuals who are working harder for a desirable effect have a cognitive drive to justify their efforts. This, in turn, leads to increased satisfaction in those working harder, as they attempt to justify increased effort by emphasizing those efforts’ successes [6]. Responses to insufficient justification, however, are less straightforward than that of the corresponding types, as the range of situations in which individuals experience it is much broader, thus can, and has, yielded a myriad of different responses [7,6].

Insufficient justification responses: Insufficient justification is slightly less intuitive than the other two applications; however, it ties directly into the definition outlined above for cognitive dissonance. It has already been shown how insufficient justification could be applied to explain the earthquake phenomenon; however, its originating experiment was far more complex. Festinger and Carlsmith [8] designed an experiment that created dissonance in participants’ beliefs regarding a tedious experiment by paying different amounts ($1 and $20 groups) to subjects in each group to report that the experiment was interesting. The important finding was that, contrary to the expected, the group that was paid less money later reported having enjoyed the experiment more, that they found the experiment to be interesting, and showed a desire to repeat it. Meanwhile, the group who was paid the $20 had no trouble admitting it was boring later on and did not seem to be bothered by the lie. Festinger and Carlsmith explained this in terms of “sufficient justification” [8]. The payment made in the $20 group was deemed sufficient justification for the lie, and thus individuals did not experience dissonance when reporting on the experiment. On the other hand, the group that was paid $1 for their description of the experiment was not able to justify their behavior for the meager reward and thus, because their behavior contradicted their beliefs, they simply altered their belief that the experiment had been boring to alleviate the discomfort (dissonance).

1.2.2 Belief vs. Behavior

The results of the experiment that introduced insufficient justification [8] differ slightly from those of the original earthquake example [7] in terms of severity and consequences, but they both highlight an obvious and key element of internal response to dissonant experiences. That is, in the case of dissonance between belief and behaviors, one has two clear options-changes their beliefs or changes their behaviors. Frequently, changing behaviors is not a viable option once a decision has been made, effort has been exerted, or when an event has already transpired. However, in the cases where it is an option, dissonance has been shown to have different effects if one believes a decision is reversible [14]. Still, more often with dissonance the resulting shift occurs in beliefs-with the examples of post-decisional reframing or effort justification, and their effects on various sects of life, such as with regards to policy attitudes [10], voting behaviors [15,11] education [13], or weight loss and psychotherapy [12]. This shift in belief is what can be seen in Festinger and Carlsmith’s initial experiment-individuals in the $1 group changed their belief about the experiment to alleviate dissonance related discomfort [8]. However, the observations of Prasad [7] differed in terms of the temporal reality being affected by the dissonance-where Festinger’s experiments have all yielded the reframing or denial of past events [8,6], Prasad showed how people can also respond to dissonance in the continual denial of a reality-even going so far as to blatantly reject that current reality as is shown in the example of rumors, serving as attempts to control/ change an outward environment to be congruent with one’s own inward experiences.

1.2.3 Modern interpretations

Since cognitive dissonance can be applied to many situations in which inconsistencies in cognitions, thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, etc. exist, others have utilized the theory to explain phenomena outside the realm of Festinger’s initial three effects. For example, various researchers have attempted to broaden the scope of dissonance by looking at how simplistic a cognitive inconsistency can be and still induce cognitive discomfort. Findings support the notion that any cognitively held inconsistency, no matter how small, has the potential of inducing dissonant states within the brain [16,17]. Other research has attempted to narrow down the theory by looking at the specific instances in which dissonance theory holds true and when it doesn’t. One such attempt was noted earlier with relation to post-decisional dissonance, as the separation of irreversible and reversable decisions was made [14]. Other attempts look at personality traits as risk factors for cognitive dissonance [18] or examine how cognitive dissonance is experienced differently across cultures [19,20].

1.2.4 Social norms

The relationship between cognitive dissonance and social norms may not seem entirely obvious at first, but because social norms often influence individual’s behavior in various situations, it can frequently be the cause of dissonance inducing behaviors. The common example of the “white lie” can be examined here, as one might hold the internal belief that lying is wrong but feel pressured to conform to social expectations to maintain a social balance. From a cognitive dissonance standpoint, an individual who has engaged in such a behavior has few options to alleviate the dissonant discomfort. Assuming the lie was about something as basic as liking a haircut, their only options would be to come clean or based on the insufficient justification principle, be forced to change their appraisal and believe they actually did like the haircut. It can also be argued that depending on the person, and their values, it’s possible they may not experience cognitive dissonance at all if they view social expectations and norms as an adequate justification for their behavior.

Display rules: Social norms can often dictate what are known as display rules. Display rules were originally introduced by Paul Ekman and Friesen [21]. Based on Ekman’s background in cross-cultural non-verbal behaviors and micro-expressions, display rules were initially discussed in terms of emotional displays, as they dictate the situations in which individuals are “allowed” to display their emotions in a socially acceptable way. Since then, emotion seems to have remained the main focus of display rules [22-25]. Obviously, because display rules are often learned by socialization factors and social norm internalization, several differences have been noted across culture. One prominent distinction was made between individualistic and collectivist cultures-research has found cross-cultural display effects for in-group vs. out-group behaviors, but expressivity widely varied [26]. Likewise, research conducted regarding smaller cultural contexts, such as work atmospheres have found a significant emphasis on display rules [27]. This makes intuitive sense as professional environments demand professionalism, which might consequently limit emotional expressions. Additionally, such rules can disincentivize individuals from interacting with any emotional contexts in certain settings, be it their own feelings or their perceptions of others.

Gender differences and emotion regulation: In terms of emotional expression, there is clear evidence that society places different standards on men and women, which can cause harm to both genders. For example, women are often deemed so emotional that it has become a stereotype and a means of discreditation. Yet socially, this means women are allowed to express their emotions more openly than men, who have traditionally had the expectation of stoicism [28,29]. These differences are also thought to have led to different systems of emotional regulation-while both sexes have been shown to engage in the simple tactic of suppression, women have been shown more capable of emotional reappraisal compared to men [30]. Interestingly, unhealthy emotional regulation can be a learnedtechnique in childhood, as children have been shown to internalize the mechanisms being used by their parents [31].

1.2.5 Reductions in empathy

Research has examined the different reasons individuals might veer away from empathetic responses. Emotional regulation has been discussed as one such possibility, under the assumption suppressing our own emotions makes us less willing to interact with others’ [32]. Additionally, cognitive costs have been explored, as researchers take a cognitive toll approach to explain why individuals might choose to avoid empathy on the premise that it is a cognitively exhausting experience [33,34]. However, no known research has considered the possibility that empathy reduction can occur as a result of cognitive dissonance. The notion that social norms can prevent one from interacting with their own and others’ emotions could potentially cause dissonant cognitions in one’s perception of an emotional situation. Thus, empathy reduction could serve as the dissonance alleviating mechanism when inconsistencies cannot be otherwise addressed. The current study explores empathy in terms of emotional intelligence- i. e, the acuteness of one individual to the emotional experience of another.