Consistency Theories

Consistency theories argue that people need to keep their own thoughts and actions consistent with each other. When each cognitive elements are inconsistent, an uncomfortable tension results from the disharmony. Efforts to reduce this tension will result in attitude change.

Two types of consistency theories are reviewed : balance theory and cognitive dissonance theory.

1. Balance Theory
According to balance theory, people assign positive or negative values to the people and objects they think about and the relationships betweeen them. For example, a Person( P ) likes his parents (the Object or O). This liking relationship ( + ) is symbolized as P + O . The person also likes his girlfriend X (symbolized as P + X ). If his parents also like his girlfriend, then O + X. In this situation, all relationships are balanced : P + O , P + X , and O + X .

If, however, his parents dislike this girlfriend ( P - X ), this introduces a single negative relationship into the three relationships : P + O , P + X , but O - X. This set of relationships is said to be imbalanced.

Because of the problem created by the imbalance, one or more of the relationships will have to be corrected to restore a sense of balance. For example, the person could break up with his girlfriend ( P - X ). When P + O , O - X and P - X, relationships are once more balanced : P still likes O, but now both P and O dislikes X.

Balance theory explains that attitudes are changed when they are incompatible with other attitudes. Suppose you have always liked a particular actor but disliked a particular politician. The actor has just publicly supported that politician. You will now have to change either your attitude toward the actor (to dislike) or your attitude toward the politician (to liking). After this change in attitude, your relationships will once more be balanced.

2. Cognitive Dissonance Theory
According to self-justification, we sometimes form attitudes to justify our own recent behaviour. Cognitive dissonance theory, developed by the social psychologist Leon Festinger, asserts that self-justification is necessary because a mismatch between attitudes and behaviour creates disharmony (dissonance), which produces psychological tension. This tension works like a drive that we are motivated to reduce. Tension reduction is achieved when we change our attitudes so they are harmonius with our recent behaviour.

For example, a person has always purchased Brand A cereal which she likes very much. One day she notices that a similar cereal, Brand B is ten cents cheaper than Brand A, so she buys B instead. The next time she goes shopping, Brand B is marked with its usual, slightly higher price. She asks herself which brand she should buy, A or B. If she decides to buy A, she must conclude that she swithed to B only because of that one-time ten-cent difference. If she feels that a ten-cent savings is not enough justification for the switch, she may conclude that she "must have" swithed to B because she likes B better. To justify having bought B last time, she changes her attitude to be pro-B and buys B again. To reduce dissonance ("I always liked A but I bought B"), she changes her attitude ("I must really like B better").

When our inner systems (beliefs, attitudes, values, etc.) all support one another and when these are also supported by external evidence, then we have a comfortable state of affairs. The discomfort of cognitive dissonance occurs when things fall out of alignment, which leads us to try to achieve a maximum practical level of consistency in our world.

We also have a very strong need to believe we are being consistent with social norms. When there is conflict between behaviors that are consistent with inner systems and behaviors that are consistent with social norms, the potential threat of social exclusion often sways us towards the latter, even though it may cause significant inner dissonance.

Ways we achieve consistency between conflicting items include:

• Denial or ignoring : 'I didn't see it happen.'
• Rationalization and excuses : 'It was going to fall anyway.'
• Separation of items :'I don't use my car enough to make a difference .'
• Transcendence : 'Nobody is perfect.'
• Changing item : 'I'll be more careful next time.'
• Persuasion : 'I'm good, really, aren't I?'

Other links

Consistency

Cognitive Consistency Theory