When Prophesy fails?
Manoj Chawla
MD @ EasyPeasy Limited, Award winning Transformation & Innovation Guru, C level positions ex Accenture, BT, PWC, Diageo, ICI.
Do you find it difficult to get people or leaders to change their mind once they have made a (public) decision?
?
Salesmen know never to try to close a sale unless they are already certain that the customer is 100% likely to say Yes.
?
Have you noticed how LinkedIn has so many posts referring to issues like Gaza/Israel with views so diametrically opposite that you wonder if we are all on the same world.
?
We see this also in the case of supporters of politicians, for example supporters of Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal.
?
It is surprising how often people are willing to look the other way rather than address the issues raised by objective information.
?
What do you think is the “right answer”?
?
Cognitive Dissonance and the Backfire Effect
In a world brimming with diverse beliefs and opinions, understanding how individuals process information and what happens when they encounter contradictory evidence is crucial. Two psychological phenomena, cognitive dissonance and the backfire effect, provide profound insights into why people often cling to their beliefs more tightly when confronted with opposing views, especially when these beliefs are closely tied to their identity.
Understanding Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person experiences mental discomfort due to holding conflicting cognitions (beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours). For instance, if someone believes they are environmentally conscious but frequently flies in airplanes, the clash between their self-perception and actions can lead to dissonance. According to Leon Festinger, who formulated the theory in 1957, people are motivated to reduce this discomfort, typically by changing their beliefs, justifying their behaviour, or ignoring the conflicting information.
The Complication of the Backfire Effect
While cognitive dissonance pushes for a resolution, the backfire effect can make this process particularly challenging. Discovered in the realm of political science and psychology, the backfire effect describes a situation where, instead of changing one's views when presented with contradictory evidence, individuals support their original stance more strongly. This reaction is most pronounced when beliefs are integral to the person's identity—political, religious, or ethical convictions, for example.
Why Identity Matters
When beliefs are closely tied to one’s identity, they are not just opinions or conclusions about the world. They are a vital part of the self. Challenging these beliefs is perceived not merely as questioning what one thinks but who one is. This is why evidence contradicting deeply held beliefs can lead to an even stronger attachment to those beliefs, as acknowledging an error can feel like losing a part of oneself.
The work of Leon Festinger and Elliot Aronson are instrumental in understanding this.? (If you have read some of my previous posts you may already be familiar with some of the ideas.
?
?
1.???? Leon Festinger: He is the originator of the cognitive dissonance theory, which he developed in 1957. Festinger's seminal work began with the observation of a cult that believed in an imminent apocalypse. When the prophecy failed, rather than changing their beliefs, the members adjusted their cognitive framework to explain the non-event, thus reducing their dissonance. His work has laid the groundwork for numerous studies on how people strive for internal consistency.
2.??? Elliot Aronson: Aronson, one of Festinger’s students, further refined and expanded cognitive dissonance theory. He is particularly well-known for his research on the self-consistency aspect of dissonance. Aronson proposed that dissonance is most powerful and uncomfortable when it involves our self-image and that individuals are motivated to maintain a positive self-view, which can lead to changing behaviours or attitudes.
?
?
When Prophecy Fails
"When Prophecy Fails" by Leon Festinger, Henry Reckon, and Stanley Schachter, published in 1956, is a pivotal work in the field of social psychology. The book explores the study of a small UFO religion in Chicago called The Seekers, which believed that the end of the world was imminent. The group's leader, Dorothy Martin, prophesied a flood that would destroy the earth on December 21, 1954, and claimed that The Seekers would be rescued by a flying saucer.
When the prophesied apocalypse did not occur, rather than abandoning their beliefs, the group members exhibited increased commitment and began to proselytize with fervour. This response was used by the authors to develop the theory of cognitive dissonance. The book argues that when people are faced with information that contradicts their beliefs, they may choose to increase their belief in the original misinformation, especially when they have made significant commitments to those beliefs.
The study has been influential in psychology, illustrating how people rationalize their experiences to align with their expectations, and providing insights into the conditions under which belief systems are reinforced rather than abandoned, even in the face of contradictory evidence.
Belief systems are hard to change, and any attempt to change them by rational arguments usually backfires and views harden.
?
“When Prophecy Fails" presents several key points and highlights that are central to understanding the phenomenon of belief perseverance and cognitive dissonance:
1.???? Initial Commitment and Belief: The book begins by exploring the strong commitment of the group members to their belief in an impending apocalypse and their expected salvation by extra-terrestrials. The members were deeply invested emotionally and had made public their beliefs, which increased their commitment.
2.???? The Prophecy's Failure: The central event is the failure of the prophecy that a flood would end the world on December 21, 1954, and that the group would be rescued by a spaceship. This disconfirmation was a critical test of the group's beliefs.
3.???? Response to Disconfirmation: Instead of acknowledging their error and abandoning their apocalyptic beliefs, group members chose to reinterpret the evidence. They believed their faith had prevented the disaster, thus turning potential disconfirmation into a reinforcement of their belief system.
4.???? Increased Proselytization: After the non-occurrence of the apocalypse, the group members increased their efforts to spread their beliefs. This was contrary to what might be expected; they became more fervent in their efforts to proselytize, which the authors suggest was an attempt to reduce dissonance by seeking validation from a wider audience.
5.???? Development of Cognitive Dissonance Theory: The authors used this case study to articulate the theory of cognitive dissonance, which suggests that individuals experience psychological stress or discomfort when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs. In an effort to reduce this discomfort, individuals strive to maintain consistency among their cognitions (beliefs, ideas).
6.???? Social Support and Reinforcement: The social environment of the group members played a crucial role in their response to the disconfirmation. The support they provided to each other helped sustain their belief system despite the clear evidence against it.
7.???? Implications for the Study of Belief Systems: The study highlighted how belief systems are not easily abandoned, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This has implications for understanding political, religious, and cultural beliefs and movements.
?
Now one can argue that this behaviour is for people who aren’t intelligent or belong to a weird cult but it’s not that simple.
?
Intelligence can play a complex role in how individuals process and respond to new, contradictory information. Rather than simply aiding in objective learning and adaptation, intelligence can sometimes be used to justify pre-existing beliefs or rationalize inconsistencies. Here are some ways in which intelligence can be used more for justification than for genuine learning:
1.???? Sophisticated Rationalization: Intelligent individuals often possess advanced cognitive abilities and can generate more complex, sophisticated arguments to defend their views. They are adept at using their intelligence to construct explanations that support their pre-existing beliefs, even in the face of contradicting evidence.
2.???? Selective Information Processing: Intelligence can enable selective information processing, where individuals preferentially seek out, interpret, and recall information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and ignore or discount information that contradicts them. This confirmation bias is not limited to less intelligent individuals; in fact, more intelligent people might be better at using their cognitive skills to filter and interpret information in a biased manner.
3.???? Cognitive Dissonance Reduction: As suggested by Festinger in "When Prophecy Fails," cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals encounter information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. Intelligent individuals might use their cognitive skills to reinterpret or rationalize contradictory information in a way that reduces the discomfort associated with dissonance, rather than updating their beliefs.
领英推荐
4.???? Overconfidence in One's Own Beliefs: Higher intelligence can sometimes lead to overconfidence. Intelligent individuals may have a higher belief in the accuracy of their own knowledge and judgments, making them less likely to consider alternative perspectives or new information that contradicts their beliefs.
5.???? Complex Ideological Constructs: More intelligent individuals are often capable of constructing and maintaining more complex ideological systems. They can use their intellectual abilities to integrate new information into their pre-existing frameworks in ways that distort its meaning or significance, thus reinforcing their original views.
6.???? Use of Heuristics and Biases: While intelligence can enhance one's ability to use sophisticated cognitive heuristics and biases effectively, it can also lead to relying on them in inappropriate contexts. This can result in smarter individuals applying these shortcuts to dismiss or downplay contradicting information swiftly.
?
It's not limited to cults or sects. We see this all around in the world and we are all prone to it.
?
1.???? Political Parties: A political party may campaign on anti-corruption but fail to address corruption within its own ranks once in power. Party members might justify this by focusing on other achievements or dismissing the corruption as less severe compared to opponents.
2.???? Religious Organizations: A church might face a scandal involving moral misconduct by a leader. Followers may rationalize this by claiming the leader was tempted or tested by external evil forces, thus preserving their faith in the religion's purity.
3.???? Investment Clubs: An investment club may continue to endorse a particular stock despite consistent underperformance, rationalizing that the market hasn’t yet recognized the stock's "true value."
4.???? Environmental Groups: If a renewable energy project leads to unexpected environmental damage, supporters might downplay the damage by emphasizing the overall benefits of renewable energy over fossil fuels.
5.???? Fan Clubs of Celebrities: Fans of a celebrity who is caught in a scandal might deny the evidence or blame the media for exaggerating the situation, preserving their idealized image of the celebrity.
6.???? Scientific Communities: Researchers might continue to support a disproven theory due to its widespread acceptance in past literature, citing anomalies as "exceptions" or "outliers."
7.???? Corporate Boards: When a company's strategy leads to financial loss, the board might blame unforeseen market conditions or unfair competition, rather than admit flawed strategy.
8.???? Nationalist Movements: Nationalists might overlook historical atrocities committed by their country, focusing instead on its achievements and contributions to civilization.
9.???? Diet and Health Communities: Followers of a particular diet might dismiss new research showing adverse effects of the diet, emphasizing personal anecdotes or earlier, supportive studies.
10. Sports Team Fans: Fans might explain away a loss by their favourite team by blaming poor officiating or unfair play by the opposition rather than team performance.
11. Educational Institutions: When a prestigious university is criticized for handling incidents poorly (like sexual assault cases), alumni and staff might focus on the institution’s academic excellence and history of producing leaders.
12. Professional Organizations: In professions where there is evidence of systemic bias (like gender bias in tech), members might deny the extent of the bias or attribute it to individual choices rather than systemic issues.
13. Historical Revisionist Groups: Such groups might reinterpret events like colonialism, focusing on the "civilizing" aspects rather than the exploitation and violence.
14. Technology Enthusiasts: When a new gadget fails to perform as advertised, fans might blame their own misuse or claim that software updates will fix any issues.
15. Military Organizations: After an unsuccessful military operation, officials might justify the outcomes by highlighting the challenging conditions or unexpected enemy strategies.
16. Economic Think Tanks: Economists might continue to advocate for austerity measures despite evidence of their detrimental effects on economic growth, citing long-term benefits over short-term hardships.
17. Social Movements: Activists might blame the failure of a protest to enact change on media bias or political interference, rather than on possible shortcomings in the protest’s organization or message.
18. Healthcare Providers: Some doctors might continue to recommend treatments like bed rest for back pain despite newer research favouring active recovery, citing traditional medical training.
19. Consumer Brand Loyalty: Consumers might justify sticking with a smartphone brand that is known to be overpriced and underperforming compared to alternatives by highlighting its design or brand status.
20. Public Policy Advocates: Supporters of a failing policy might argue that the policy needs more time to show results or that its failures are due to issues in implementation rather than the policy itself.
?
Real World Examples
1.???? Political Parties: An example is the Republican Party's stance on fiscal responsibility. Traditionally advocating for reducing national debt, many Republican leaders and members continued to support or justify large increases in the national debt under President Trump’s administration, emphasizing tax cuts and economic growth as more immediate goals.
2.???? Religious Organizations: In the Catholic Church, numerous sexual abuse scandals have been met with cognitive dissonance. Many faithful have rationalized the church’s actions by separating the religion from its clerics' behaviour, emphasizing the church's broader mission and charity work.
3.???? Investment Clubs: During the dot-com bubble, many investment clubs heavily invested in tech stocks despite signs of overvaluation, rationalizing their decisions by focusing on the revolutionary potential of the internet and technology sector.
4.???? Environmental Groups: Greenpeace faced cognitive dissonance when it initially opposed genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including golden rice—a modified rice that could prevent vitamin A deficiency. Despite evidence of benefits, they maintained opposition due to broader anti-GMO stances, citing environmental and purity principles.
5.???? Fan Clubs of Celebrities: Fans of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard exhibited cognitive dissonance during their public legal battles, where both accused each other of abuse. Fans of each actor found ways to justify supporting their favoured celebrity by dismissing or downplaying conflicting accounts and evidence.
6.???? Scientific Communities: The initial resistance within the medical community to accept that ulcers are primarily caused by the bacteria H. pylori, not stress or spicy food, showcases cognitive dissonance. Despite growing evidence, many doctors clung to traditional beliefs until overwhelming evidence and new medical guidelines shifted the consensus.
7.???? Corporate Boards: Boeing’s initial response to the 737 MAX crashes involved executives blaming pilot error and insufficient training rather than acknowledging possible design flaws in the aircraft’s MCAS system, maintaining the company's reputation for safety.
8.???? Nationalist Movements: Japanese nationalist groups often downplay or deny the events of the Nanking Massacre during WWII. They focus on Japan's victimization in the war, such as the atomic bombings, to maintain a positive national identity.
9.???? Diet and Health Communities: The low-fat diet craze persisted for decades despite emerging research suggesting that not all fats are harmful. Advocates and followers continued promoting low-fat options, ignoring studies highlighting the benefits of healthy fats.
10. Sports Team Fans: New England Patriots fans frequently rationalized the team's involvement in scandals like Spygate and Deflategate, attributing accusations to jealousy and anti-Patriots sentiment rather than acknowledging potential wrongdoing.
11. Educational Institutions: When Yale University faced criticism for the title of "master" for faculty heads of college, many alumni argued it was a harmless tradition, overlooking the term’s connotations of slavery that prompted discomfort among students and faculty.
12. Professional Organizations: The American Psychological Association (APA) initially supported enhanced interrogation techniques, rationalizing this stance by citing national security interests, despite ethical concerns about torture.
13. Historical Revisionist Groups: Confederate sympathizers in the U.S. often reinterpret the Civil War as being about states' rights rather than slavery, despite extensive historical documentation of slavery’s centrality to the conflict.
14. Technology Enthusiasts: Apple enthusiasts often defend the company’s decision to remove headphone jacks from iPhones, rationalizing it as a push towards a wireless future, despite initial widespread criticism over user inconvenience.
15. Military Organizations: The U.S. military initially downplayed the severity of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, attributing it to a few bad actors rather than acknowledging systemic issues within military detention practices.
16. Economic Think Tanks: Advocates for trickle-down economics continue to support tax cuts for the wealthy as a means to stimulate economic growth, despite numerous studies suggesting that the benefits do not significantly trickle down to lower-income individuals.
17. Social Movements: Some members of the Occupy Wall Street movement blamed media bias for the movement’s dwindling impact and failure to achieve substantial policy change, rather than internal organizational challenges or strategic errors.
18. Healthcare Providers: Resistance among some healthcare providers to adopt electronic health records (EHRs) stemmed from a preference for established paper-based methods, despite clear advantages of EHRs in improving patient care coordination and data sharing.
19. Consumer Brand Loyalty: Loyal customers of Lululemon rationalized the company’s problematic statements about women’s body types affecting the performance of their products by focusing on the brand’s promotion of yoga and fitness lifestyles.
20. Public Policy Advocates: Proponents of the war on drugs continued to defend it despite evidence suggesting it has failed to significantly reduce drug use and has led to high incarceration rates, focusing instead on its moral stance against drug consumption.
Applications in Consumer Marketing
Dr. Matt Johnson, a professor of psychology and neuroscience with expertise in consumer psychology, applies the concept of cognitive dissonance to marketing in several insightful ways. His views highlight how marketers can both create and resolve cognitive dissonance to influence consumer behaviour.