1. Cognitive Dissonance 1
Cognitive Dissonance and its Affect during a Political Campaign
William R. Beer
Eastern Connecticut State University

2. Cognitive Dissonance 2
INTRODUCTION
This literature review will discuss several studies that have attempt to explain how cognitive
dissonance may impact the voters’ decision making process during a political campaign.
Cognitive dissonance occurs when ones ideas, or actions become conflicted (Festinger, 1957).
Feelings of anxiety or discomfort may arise when they are exposed to this type of conflict.
Suffice it to say, when one experiences cognitive dissonance, they will typically try to suppress
the discomfort through confirmation bias, or a process known as selective exposure—when one
chooses to only expose themselves to thoughts or actions that are congruent to their own (Journal
of Communication, 2006). Another approach in which one may reduce dissonance, consists of
actually conforming to opposing ideas or actions. During my research, it has become apparent
that several different factors can lead to an overabundance of dissonance one might experience
when deciding who to vote for. The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing
during a Political Campaign suggests, that some voters may only conduct research on candidates
that share the same beliefs. Sticking with Your Vote: Cognitive Dissonance and Voting proposes
that the act of voting actually strengthens the opinions of their future opinions of a future
candidate. Other ideas we will discuss, are that of polarization—the process of dividing into
opposing sides—and motivated skepticism (mistakenly applying more skepticism to the claims
you don’t like than to those that you do like). Polarization and motivated skepticism can be
closely related to cognitive dissonance theory, and both be used to further explain how one may
experience it while making an important decisions such as voting. Upon the conclusion of this
review, it is hopeful you may understand the true impact that cognitive dissonance may have on
an individual, or even society as a whole.

3. Cognitive Dissonance 3
Key Terms: selective exposure; cognitive dissonance; polarization; counterattitudinal;
confirmation bias; congruency bias; motivated skepticism; information recall; maturation;
external validity; artifact
ARTICLE 1: The Effects of Negativity and Motivated Information Processing During a
Political Campaign
This article states that most political campaign studies that are conducted, incorporate some
focus on how cognitive dissonance may exist when a voter is faced with deciding who to vote
for. An example of this is when a voter is exposed to both negative and positive political
campaign ads. If a voter has viewed both a positive and negative campaign ad for the candidate
they are likely to vote for, they are only likely to recall information from the positive ad (Taber
and Lodge, 2001). However, if the viewer has seen both a positive, and negative ad campaign for
an opposing candidate, they will most likely recall only negative information about that
candidate. This process is known as information recall. We recall more ideas that are least likely
to incite cognitive dissonance. Researchers conducted a computer-based experiment that would
try and simulate a real life voting scenario. This study was comprised of 229 undergraduate
students that would receive extra credit for participating. One gap that may have existed during
this study (which could threaten external validity), is the visualization of candidates interacting
with the public. During political campaigns, we are constantly exposed to live speeches and
current hot button items. Although most topics debated were relative to the experiment, other
influencing topics that could develop any day could easily sway a voter’s decision. For example,
how a candidate decides he may take action against threats against the country, may directly and
immediately impact a voters decision. Cognitive dissonance may also occur, actually changing
how they vote, or who they vote for in the future. If the voter has consistently voted for a

4. Cognitive Dissonance 4
candidate that identifies with the same party as the voter, and that candidate has strayed from the
voters beliefs, dissonance is likely to develop. The voter may then change their voting decision
in order to alleviate their cognitive dissonance.
ARTICLE 2: Sticking With Your Vote: Cognitive Dissonance and Voting
This article suggests a very similar idea. Mullainathan, and Washington state that when someone
votes for a candidate, they are likely to vote for them again, as long as they are running.
Cognitive dissonance is likely to play a role in this decision making process because the voter
has already previously decided to vote for this particular candidate. Typically, it becomes easier
to vote for who they have already identified themselves with. If one were to vote for another
candidate, it is likely they would become conflicted with their current thoughts or ideas about the
candidate they have voted for beforehand. Researchers conducted a brief experiment in hopes of
proving how cognitive dissonance may, or may not impact a voter’s decision. In 1996, suppose
two different individuals who supported Clinton during the election were observed. This study
mentions one individual was 17, and the other was 18. The subject that is 17 years old, and is
capable of expressing their opinions about a candidate—yet are ineligible to vote—was less
susceptible to than the individual that was 18 (old enough to vote). Clinton’s approval rating had
fallen after re-evaluation in 1998. The individual that was 18 has already chosen to vote for
Clinton—making him more likely to vote for Clinton again. The individual who was not old
enough to vote in the previous election has not made any prior political commitments, thus
allowing that individual to re-evaluate who they will now vote for (Mullainathan and
Washington, 2006). Cognitive dissonance theory would suggest that the because of both
individuals ability/inability to vote, their actions would vary from one another based on previous

5. Cognitive Dissonance 5
voting behavior. It becomes obvious that term limits prove to be beneficial; for this reason alone.
We may also observe the importance of acknowledging the fine line of individuals that are
eligible to vote, and those who are not, and the potential for misleading information related to
voter turnout or polling information. In order to avoid the potential for loosing supporters,
candidates should try their hardest to maintain and uphold their approval ratings while in office.
ARTICLE 3: Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
While reading this article, one can fully comprehend how members of society behave after
participating in any type of political discussion or debate. In this article, we journey to the
marketplace of ideas—the intangible state of mind, where one is free to rationalize or think what
they so desire—we are constantly faced with the task of building support for positive information
we hold, as well as challenging any previous thoughts we may have (Taber and Lodge, 2006).
They also suggest that while evaluating new ideas, one should “anchor” themselves or identify
with their prior beliefs and attitudes (providing their sources are credible) so their position may
be adjusted closer or further. Utilizing this method may help reduce the amount of stress when
dealing with cognitive dissonance, while also allowing one to come to the realization that CD is
inevitable with relation to political science. Eventually, the ability to manage one’s CD would
become greater. Two large groups of political science students from Boston University were
selected to participate in a study in which they would answer a series of questions pertaining to
current political issues using a computer program. Unlike the first journal mentioned in this
journal, this study does a great job of eliminating the maturation artifact (increasing its external
validity) by providing current hot button issues that were relevant to the time of the study.
Students were also asked to answer basic questions about how the U.S. government operates.
After answering the questions, and seeing the articles students were asked to discuss their

6. Cognitive Dissonance 6
findings and attempt to encourage the students to explore ideas that stray from their prior beliefs.
In their results, Taber and Lodge discovered that after the students had been exposed to an equal
amount of articles both pro, and con, the students had not varied significantly from their previous
notions on each topic. They found that students had subconsciously avoided information that
conflicted their thoughts. These results are likely due to inevitability that the participants would
succumb to cognitive dissonance, even if they had not intended to. Taber and Lodge explain that
this is each individuals attempt of “masking their objectivity” (Taber and Lodge, 2006). This
study is an excellent example of how we may experience CD, and become totally unaware.
Constantly exposing ourselves to objective, and unbiased information would likely decrease the
rate at which we subconsciously filter information.
ARTICLE 4: Looking the Other Way: Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and
Counterattitudinal Political Information
Researchers in this experiment are conducting this study slightly differently than most—
exposing participants to different topics separately, rather than simultaneously—yet very similar
to the previously mentioned, 3rd article—actually using current issues. This tactic was
implemented to ensure the participants were able to focus more closely on one topic at a time, to
certify they are knowledgeable about the explicit topic. This article postulates that measuring the
effects of cognitive dissonance by exposing participants to current political topics (rather than
articles focusing on political candidates individually). Giving the participants more time to
evaluate the articles allowed for a higher rate of understanding the article before they commit to
a stance on the issue. Researchers assumed that regardless of the increased amount of time that
the participants had to examine the articles, confirmation bias, as well as selective exposure,
would be key factors in how much time the participants actually spent reading specific articles

7. Cognitive Dissonance 7
(Knobloch-Westerwick and Meng, 2009). Rates at which participators examined
counterattitudinal information would be lower than those that identified with the same position
as the reader. This confirms the researchers’ hypothesis. They were able to establish their
hypothesis using Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory as well as use it to explain why the
participants chose to expose themselves to the articles that they did. Participants, on average,
spent about 36 percent more time reading attitude-consistent messages than on articles that
presented counterattitudinal messages. Both the pretest, and methodology chosen for this
experiment was thought out quite carefully. It is clear that because of these two aspects of their
research design that they were able to get such shocking results.
CONCLUSION
Throughout this review, we have looked at several different ways at one can measure the effects
of cognitive dissonance on our decision making process relating to politics, and how crucial it is
that we understand why and how it occurs. Each study previously mentioned utilized different
methods to try to explain, and present how we unintentionally avoid messages that conflict with
our prior beliefs or actions. We started trying to explain CD’s ability to impact or decision
making through studying selective-exposure and information recall. Mullainathan, and
Washington conducted a study which would prove that voters are more likely to vote for a
candidate they have previously voted for, in order to avoid conflicting their previous action of
voting for that candidate. Our third article took a closer look at the effects of cognitive
dissonance through exposing participants to many different articles simultaneously, assuming
that participants would not stray too far from their prior thoughts about hot button topics. By
using current political issues, they were able to avoid maturation and limit the amount of
misinformation, allowing for a more accurate study. Finally, our last article dealt with exposing

8. Cognitive Dissonance 8
participants to relative issues one at a time in order to encourage them to focus more closely on
any single issue at a time. This method was intended to strengthen participant’s knowledge and
stance on the issues they were exposed to. This study concluded that participants spent a
significantly more amount of time reading attitude-consistent articles, due to selective exposure.
Although there can never be enough research conducted on cognitive dissonance, and its
contribution to the misinformation we are confronted with on a daily basis, the studies analyzed
in this article have proven to be a good start.

9. Cognitive Dissonance 9
Bibliography
Meffert, M., Chung, S., Joiner, A., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and
motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, (56),
27-51. doi:0021-9916
Mullainathan, S., & Washington, E. (2006). Sticking with your vote: cognitive dissonance and
voting. NBER Working Paper Series, , 2-23. doi:11910
Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs.
American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755769. doi:0092-5853
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: selective exposure to
attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426-448.
doi:10.1177/0093650209333030