The power of dissonance

What's worth listening to?

This is.  A CBC Radio Ideas program regarding Elliot Aronson and his work on cognitive dissonance.  The link to the above program is worth a download to your iPod.  I'm also very interested in his new book, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).

What is cognitive dissonance? 

According to Elliot Aronson, "if a person holds two ideas that conflict with each other, he experiences cognitive dissonance which is a negative drive state (like intense hunger, except it takes place in the brain) and he or she is motivated to reduce that dissonance."

The program prompted me to go back and forth on Twitter with cuthbertsteel based on a thought I had.

"Cognitive dissonance is likely the goal of persuasion. To create something to conflict and win out over a pre-held belief."

I'm unsure of cuthbertsteel's real name, so let's call him cuthbert for now.  Cuthbert wondered right back, "Wouldn't the elimination of cognitive dissonance be the objective of persuasion?  'Flow' with complete consensual hallucination."

He is right to question the goal and objective and to do so in less than 140 characters is nothing short of amazing.  And for sure, the objective inherent in any persuasion is to win, or so I assume.  But the method of getting there is far from ordained.  Is persuasion about an easy smooth win?  To gain a person to your side in as fluid a manner as possible? 

Shouldn't changing someones beliefs or views be a tumultuous event?

Bringing the concept of cognitive dissonance into the mix, I would argue that it is about the audience embedding our idea into their psyche with significant energy to place things out of kilter.  Otherwise, we are "winning people over" who already agreed with us in the first place.  Or worse, they appear to have been persuaded only to find out they have reverted to their old ways/beliefs/thoughts.

Yet where are these fireworks when we manage to instill a new idea inside someone?  Do they come later?  Or should we continue pressing with a new idea until our audience drops to the ground in spasms of spit and gurgles?

The beauty inside the theory of cognitive dissonance is that as human animals we work extremely diligently at a less than conscious level to eliminate dissonance in our lives.  We make the process "easy" and most of the mess is hidden from our consciousness.   This occurs AFTER the state of dissonance is reached.  After an idea has achieved significant strength to oppose other ideas or beliefs.

If the idea you are arguing for is not embraced by the audience, does not worm its way down, challenging an existing (and opposed) belief with its strength of conviction, then I would put forward that your idea is not likely to change the audience or their behavior in any significant way.

The challenge as professional persuaders, in my mind, is how we instill a new idea in such a way that it is embraced and placed in direct opposition to a view, position or belief we desire to impact.