Conversation among us is peppered with observations of the division within the American population. The division is revealed in a number of forms. It may be the acknowledgement of the political gap between the left and the right. It may be geographic: east and west coast states at variance with central and southern states. There may be evidence of opposing positions over religious beliefs and expressions, social norms, ethics, and/or values. There may even be conflicting opinions about what books one reads or what newspaper captures one’s loyalty. There seems to be much that separates us into opposing factions.
However, there is a speaking technique of persuasion among some politicians and elected leaders that puts together opposing positions, with the intent to manipulate people into agreeing with the speaker. The technique is called cognitive dissonance theory.
“Cognitive dissonance theory reasons that people do not like holding to ideas in their heads that are contrary and will do what is necessary to get rid of the dissonance caused by the two contrary ideas,” according to textbook “Stand Up Speak Out” that explains the practice of ethics and public speaking. Further, cognitive dissonance theory is “an aversive motivational state that occurs when an individual entertains two or more contradictory attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors simultaneously.” That is, listeners will be so uncomfortable trying to hold two contradictory ideas together that they will exercise an implied freedom to choose one of the ideas as the most reasonable position.
There are many examples of cognitive dissonance used in political debates, election campaigns and international relationships. For example, President Trump said during his comments about withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, “We’re gonna have the cleanest air. We’re gonna have the cleanest water.” Then he speaks against climate policy and rejects the idea of scientific expertise. It is nearly impossible to strive for a clean environment and at the same time reject the science needed to accomplish it. The idea makes my brain hurt!
Another example involves the claim that Federal Aviation Administration was responsible for the deadly plane crash in January because they had initiated diversity efforts to overcome a “too white” organization. Then, a few hours later, Trump said that race or gender may have played a role in the crash. Both cannot be true.
Meanwhile, this dissonance distracts from considering other more plausible reasons. One more example involves Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He announced that the COVID vaccine is no longer approved for healthy people under the age of 65 — while at the same time he said that anyone could still get the vaccine. Senator Elizabeth Warren recognized the cognitive dissonance in his statements. She protested, “both things cannot be true at the same moment.”
Being exposed to cognitive dissonance results in feelings of confusion, frustration and the urge to solve the dilemma. It leads to either/or choices because both things cannot be true together. Making the choice results in contributing to a polarized nation. However, there is an alternative response to this method of persuasion. Resisting the manipulation inherent in the use of cognitive dissonance may provide freedom to consider other options instead of being tied to the either/or choices. Adding other possible options to the discussion may pave the way for integrated solutions. Also, introducing more options into the national conversation may help to heal the divide that is weighing down our nation.
John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Folk Rocker in his Concord home, Minds
Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com