COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY 3 Adams, J. S., Berkowitz, L. & Hatfield, E. (1976). Equity theory: Towards the general theory of social interaction. New York: Academic Press. The three authors of this book consider the theory of cognitive dissonance as, one that proposes that individuals should have motivational drive that reduces dissonance by way of altering the existing forms of cognitions. They also propose that the drive should also form new consistent belief systems, or even reduce the significance of any single element of dissonance. They consider the theory as one based on the proposition that if a person has two forms of cognitions which may be inconsistent with one another, he or she will experience some pressure of a motivational state referred to as cognitive dissonance. They argue that if a person has two forms of cognitions which may be inconsistent with one another, he or she will experience some pressure of a motivational state referred to as cognitive dissonance. This pressure seeks to alter either of the dissonant cognition. This book acts a source that identifies the major propositions within which the theory lies. Akerlof, G. A., & Dickens, W. T. (1982). Economic consequences of cognitive Dissonance. American economic review,72(3): 307–319. In this book, Akerlof and Dickens came up with an economic model of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. The two explain the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance using three simplified propositions. The first one they consider is the development of preferences of the actual state in addition to the traditional assumption over the actual state of the world; they also tend to have preferences over their own beliefs of the actual state of the world. They give an example of people believing that they are smart and compassionate. The other proposition is that people can only control their beliefs partially. They tend to belief what they choose to, if given some information. They also always chose the information to listen to. According to the authors, people prefer to think themselves as smarter, and they always tend to ignore any information that may suggest they made a wrong decision. The last proposition is that, once a particular person tends to choose his beliefs, they always persist over time. Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory. Los Angeles: SAGE Publ. In his book, Cooper identifies cognitive dissonance as one of the most influential form of theories in the field of social psychology. He considers its oldest realization as the choice induced sort of dissonance. He claims that people always tend to rationalize past choices by way of devaluing the rejected alternatives and instead upgrading the embraced ones. He refers to this process as preference spreading. He demonstrates that every study he tested suffered from a fundamental form of methodological flaw. His analysis.

1. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY
3
Adams, J. S., Berkowitz, L. & Hatfield, E. (1976). Equity
theory: Towards the general
theory of social interaction. New York: Academic Press.
The three authors of this book consider the theory of cognitive
dissonance as, one that proposes that individuals should have
motivational drive that reduces dissonance by way of altering
the existing forms of cognitions. They also propose that the
drive should also form new consistent belief systems, or even
reduce the significance of any single element of dissonance.
They consider the theory as one based on the proposition that if
a person has two forms of cognitions which may be inconsistent
with one another, he or she will experience some pressure of a
motivational state referred to as cognitive dissonance. They
argue that if a person has two forms of cognitions which may be
inconsistent with one another, he or she will experience some
pressure of a motivational state referred to as cognitive
dissonance. This pressure seeks to alter either of the dissonant
cognition. This book acts a source that identifies the major
propositions within which the theory lies.
Akerlof, G. A., & Dickens, W. T. (1982). Economic
consequences of cognitive
Dissonance. American economic review,72(3): 307–319.
In this book, Akerlof and Dickens came up with an economic
model of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. The two
explain the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance using three
simplified propositions. The first one they consider is the

2. development of preferences of the actual state in addition to the
traditional assumption over the actual state of the world; they
also tend to have preferences over their own beliefs of the
actual state of the world. They give an example of people
believing that they are smart and compassionate. The other
proposition is that people can only control their beliefs
partially. They tend to belief what they choose to, if given some
information. They also always chose the information to listen
to. According to the authors, people prefer to think themselves
as smarter, and they always tend to ignore any information that
may suggest they made a wrong decision. The last proposition is
that, once a particular person tends to choose his beliefs, they
always persist over time.
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic
theory. Los Angeles:
SAGE Publ.
In his book, Cooper identifies cognitive dissonance as one of
the most influential form of theories in the field of social
psychology. He considers its oldest realization as the choice
induced sort of dissonance. He claims that people always tend
to rationalize past choices by way of devaluing the rejected
alternatives and instead upgrading the embraced ones. He refers
to this process as preference spreading. He demonstrates that
every study he tested suffered from a fundamental form of
methodological flaw. His analysis assumes that before any
choices are made, the preferences of a subject can perfectly be
measured with accurate precision, and under appreciate the fact
that the choice of a subject reflects on their preferences.
Festinger, L. (1957). Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford,
Calif: Stanford University
Press.

3. This is a book that focuses on Festinger’s research that was
conducted in the mid-twentieth century. He focused on the
phenomenon of cognitive dissonance where he considered an
individual’s behavior as being congruent with his or her own
perception, belief structures, knowledge structures, feelings,
beliefs And central values. Beliefs, behavior, attitudes or the
central core values are considered being subject to change in a
situation where a person opts to acquire an inner form of
equilibrium, known as cognitive consonance back into balance.
At such a stage, the individual starts psychological processes
that bring the inner self’s current experiences into harmony.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance:
Progress on a pivotal theory
in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Harmon-Jones and Mills evaluate the choices that can induce
rationalization. They reason that mere choice as a form of
rationalization may not be adequate. They recommend for a
reversal that may significantly alter the normal way of thinking
on the whole issue of cognitive dissonance.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Towards cognitive science of
language, inference and
consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Johnson is a significant cognitive psychologist from Britain
whose whole insight lies on the works of cognitive science of
logic and the way individuals learn to deal with propositional
inferences. His works in this book outline a number of
experiments he and his fellow colleagues performed. He argues
against the view of the minds that reduce all the mental
operations to a particular propositional form of logic. He also

4. argues against accountings that are image based for arguments
about the real formation of a propositional logic. This includes
works that have been done in analysing whether propositions
actually come from analogies of the Venn diagrams and the
Euler circles. He claims that reasoning based on propositions
purely rests on the knowledge presentations called mental
models. These models are considered as spatial tableaus.
Jordan, N., & Institute for Defense Analyses. (1964). Theory of
a cognitive
dissonance. Washington: Institute for Defense Analyses.
Economic and Political,
Studies Div.
Jordan with the support of the Institute for Defense Analyses
published a book that examines the idea behind cognitive
dissonance. He also examines the psychological literature for
evidence of cognitive dissonance. The institution has conducted
several psychological experiments that have found evidence on
the existence of cognitive dissonance. In an example, race
tracking bettors put much higher odds on the horse only after
they have made a bet and not before hand. In another survey, he
considers subjects asked to treat other forms of subjects cruelly
reduce their opinions of the individual they are treating cruelly.
This makes them feel that the treatment is justified even though
it is cruel. The book assists in identifying the actual sources of
dissonance.
Reizenstein, R. C. (1970). An application of the theory of
cognitive dissonance to
determination of the effectiveness of two principle personal
selling techniques.
New York, NY: Ithaca.
The handbook by Reizenstein tries to carry out the tentative

5. assessment of the dissonant cognitive theory. He also in turn
proposes a set of criteria that assess the objective theories. They
propose the criterion of assessment that involves data
explanation, relative simplicity, future events prediction,
testability, as well as practical utility. He considers the theory
as significantly effective in predicting and explaining the
human behavior, even though its real expectations have faced a
challenge of receiving weak confirmations and the emergence of
unanticipated findings. This source is a handbook that assists in
evaluating the significance of dissonance.
Chapter 13
After reading chapter 13 of the textbook, Philosophy the Power
of Ideas, answer the following questions. Each answer should
be at a minimum 1 paragraph, while others may be several
paragraphs in length. The grade of A (72-80 out of 80 points)
will only be assigned to exemplary submissions, which
demonstrate extensive thought and effort in completion of the
assignment.
Please note: there are only two sources for you answers: the
textbook and your mind! Any information taken from other
sources is unacceptable. Plagiarism of the thoughts or ideas of
others be it from books or the Internet will result in a zero on
the assignment and your final course grade being dropped by a
full letter grade.
1) Explain and evaluate the argument of St. Anselm for
God’s existence.
2) Explain and evaluate Guanilo’s objection to the
ontological argument.
3) Summarize St. Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways.
4) Can we verify the religious or mystical experiences of
others?
5) Leibniz claims that this is the “best of all possible
worlds”. A) Why does he say this? B) Do you agree with his
assertion?

6. 6) Explain and evaluate Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim that
“God is dead!”
7) Compare, contrast and evaluate the views of John Morris
(or Phillip Johnson) and Richard Dawkins regarding evolution
and God’s existence.
8) Explain how it is possible that your religious views are
right and yet everyone else’s ( expect those who believe as you)
are wrong.
9) If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good, why does
he/she allow evil to pervade the world? Why is the world filled
with so much misery and suffering?
Chapter 15
After reading chapter 15 of the textbook, Philosophy the Power
of Ideas, answer the following questions. Each answer should
be at a minimum 1 paragraph, while others may be several
paragraphs in length. The grade of A (72-80 out of 80 points)
will only be assigned to exemplary submissions, which
demonstrate extensive thought and effort in completion of the
assignment.
Please note: there are only two sources for you answers: the
textbook and your mind! Any information taken from other
sources is unacceptable. Plagiarism of the thoughts or ideas of
others be it from books or the Internet will result in a zero on
the assignment and your final course grade being dropped by a
full letter grade.
1) Explain and evaluate the notions of Karma, samsara, and
Nirvana.
2) Explain and evaluate the Hindu ideas of Brahman, atman
and reality.
3) Explain the Buddha’s four noble truths. Is he correct in

7. his view?
4) Explain and evaluate the “Eight Fold Path”. Is this a
reasonable philosophy for life?
5) Explain the connection or relationship between Tao, Yin,
and Yang.
6) Explain and evaluate Lao Tzu’s notion of effortless non-
striving.
7) Explain and evaluate Confucius’s principle of Mean.
8) Explain and evaluate the views of Murasaki Shikibu and
the role and status of women.
9) What are some of the similarities between Buddhism and
Hinduism?
Research Proposals
The final paper for this class should propose a fusion, recasting,
or innovative test of a persuasion theory that has been examined
in this class. The goal of this assignment is to write a paper
that is as close to a research study as possible. When reading
through your articles for this essay, you probably encountered
either theoretical reformulations (extending or fusing theories
of persuasion), empirical tests (testing the theory on a sample of
subjects using some experimental method), or measurement
articles (creating a scale by which to measure a persuasive
phenomenon). For your paper, you should use one of these
three types of articles as a model:
1) you can take existing theories and fuse them together in a
new and exciting way, 2) you can take an existing theory and
test it in a new context, or
3) you can incorporate new factors regarding persuasion into a
scale that helps us measure the construct.

8. The annotated bibliography should serve as a guide for the
literature review section of your paper—where you lay the
foundations for your fusion/study. In addition to the literature
review, you should compose a methods section which lays out
the steps by which you want to test your theory in an innovative
context. Ideally, a perfect paper for this class involves an
introduction, literature review, methods section, anticipated
results/data analysis, and finally a discussion section—an
outline follows:
I. Introduction
A. Hook or Attention Grabber.
B. Significance, Purpose, & Scope of your investigation (why it
is important and how it relates to persuasion).
C. Thesis Statement that Previews your analysis.
II. Body
A. The primary theory that you are investigating.
1. A summary of the theory and its major premises.
2. Your research that demonstrates a depth further than the
textbook.
3. The current state of the theory including its future directions.
B. A new context or another theory that can be conjoined to
your primary theory.
1. A summary of research about the other theory or studies
conducted in the specific context.
2. Why the new context illuminates uncharted areas of the

9. theory—what the context brings to the table OR how a different
theory’s focus can illuminate an undiscovered aspect of your
original theory.
3. Identifying what persuasive aspects or tactics would change
in the new context or with the new theory.
C. Fusion of context/theory.
1. Identify what would be foregrounded in a theoretical fusion
or what new aspect of persuasion would be investigated with a
multi-theoretical approach.
2. How you would conduct a study to test your idea: the design,
the participants, the procedure, the materials, what types of data
collection you would use, and how you would measure the
primary variables in your study.
3. What results you would anticipate if you had all of the
available resources to conduct your study—bring it to its finale.
4. Discuss what limitations you may face and what future
directions other communication researchers may take to further
extend your analysis.
III. Conclusion
A. Restate your major points and summarize the central
argument of your theoretical fusion or context.
B. End with a final note that ties your essay back to your
significance—how does your investigation answer some of the
major questions/problems you originally introduced.
***Remember to add in your own experiences, actually u can
make it up**
but be aware that I am an international student from Hong
Kong. Therefore, becareful when giving out examples. Thank

10. you.
And u can use my other document as the article if it’s
application to what u wanna write. I am using “Cognitive
Dissonance” as my main theory, but u can feel free to add
another concept and fuse them together to make a new concept.
Or just use the “Cognitive Dissonance” to test in new context.
Thank you.