From the author: Here is a dictionary entry from the book “Lexicon of Social Work: A Study Guide.” The dry, laconic, scientific style of the article is determined by the requirements of the publishing house. The concept of “cognitive dissonance” was introduced by the American psychologist Leon Festinger (1957). According to this theory, we feel tension (dissonance) when two thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) are psychologically incompatible. This happens when we decide to say or do something about which we have mixed feelings. More often, the theory of cognitive dissonance is used to explain behavior caused by a discrepancy between an action and beliefs. Dissonance in such cases is an unpleasant tension that arises as a result of a discrepancy between any behavioral act in which we participate and our attitudes. When experiencing dissonance, a person feels the need to reduce or eliminate it, and thereby get rid of unpleasant tension. There are three ways to achieve consonance. The first way is to cancel, or change behavior so that it is consistent with beliefs. This method is often impossible to implement, since the action has already been committed. The second method is to ignore dissonance or construct plausible justifications that make it possible to explain the action by the influence of external forces. The third way to achieve consonance is to change beliefs so that new attitudes justify the behavior. Research on cognitive dissonance has revealed some psychological patterns of its course. Knowledge of these patterns allows for targeted influence on people’s attitudes and beliefs. Patterns of the flow of dissonance following decision making. Cognitive dissonance occurs when we have to make a choice between several alternatives that have both attractive and repulsive features, i.e., experiencing an internal motivational conflict. The experience of both attraction and repulsion is called a state of ambivalence. After making a decision, all the positive aspects of the rejected alternative and all the negative aspects of the chosen alternative become incompatible with the decision made, which always creates cognitive dissonance. Most often, to reduce dissonance, people tend to exaggerate the advantages of the accepted alternative and the disadvantages of the rejected one. This tendency is especially strong in cases where the choice was made from alternatives that were similar in attractiveness and the choice was perceived as voluntary. If, after making a decision, a person is confronted with an opinion expressed in favor of the alternative he rejected, he feels threatened by the return of ambivalence and unpleasant tensions of dissonance. To achieve consonance in such a situation, a person attributes to the opponent negative personal qualities that plausibly explain why he chose the “wrong” alternative. This pattern is called the externalization of internal conflicts, and it is often the reason for a sharply negative attitude towards people who express alternative opinions. Behavior that contradicts attitudes is often the reason for a change in attitudes. When a person who has a certain belief takes an action that contradicts that belief, cognitive dissonance occurs. Since an action that has already been completed cannot be undone, consonance can be achieved either by displacing the memory of this action from consciousness, or by constructing (attributing) a plausible reason (accident, compulsion, etc.), or by changing the original belief. Empirical studies have identified a number of factors that increase the likelihood of changing an attitude after behavior that is incompatible with it (Festinger and Carlsmith 1959; Aronson 1963; Linder and Cooper 1967, etc.). The behavior must be unusual, unusual (it has never been done before). The reward promised for behavior should not be so high that it serves as an excuse., 2000.