Cognitive Dissonance: Why We Rationalize What We Know Isn’t True

Introduction

Every day, people encounter situations where their beliefs clash with new information or their actions contradict their values. A smoker knows cigarettes cause cancer but continues smoking. A person who values honesty might lie to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. These scenarios illustrate cognitive dissonance, a psychological state that occurs when someone holds contradictory beliefs, values, or attitudes simultaneously.

Leon Festinger introduced cognitive dissonance theory in 1957, fundamentally changing how psychologists understand human motivation and behavior. The theory suggests that when people experience inconsistency between their thoughts, beliefs, or actions, they feel psychological discomfort. This discomfort motivates them to reduce the inconsistency through various mental strategies, often involving rationalization rather than changing their behavior or admitting they were wrong.

Understanding cognitive dissonance helps explain many puzzling aspects of human behavior. Why do people persist in harmful habits? How do intelligent individuals maintain false beliefs despite contrary evidence? Why do we sometimes make decisions that seem irrational? The answers often lie in the complex ways our minds work to maintain internal consistency and protect our self-image.

This paper examines cognitive dissonance from multiple angles, including its psychological mechanisms, neurological basis, real-world manifestations, and practical applications. By exploring both historical research and recent findings, we can better understand this fundamental aspect of human psychology and its impact on our daily lives.

The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Festinger’s Original Theory

Leon Festinger’s original theory proposed three basic assumptions about cognitive dissonance. First, people have an inner drive to maintain harmony among their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Second, when disharmony occurs, it creates psychological discomfort. Third, this discomfort motivates people to reduce the dissonance and restore balance (Festinger, 1957).

Festinger identified several ways people reduce cognitive dissonance. They might change their behavior to match their beliefs, change their beliefs to match their behavior, or add new beliefs that justify the inconsistency. Often, the path of least resistance involves rationalization rather than fundamental change.

Consider a simple example. Sarah believes eating healthy food is important, but she frequently eats fast food. This creates dissonance. Rather than change her eating habits, Sarah might rationalize by telling herself that her busy schedule makes healthy eating impossible, or that occasional fast food won’t hurt her. These mental adjustments reduce her psychological discomfort without requiring behavioral change.

Modern Developments in Dissonance Theory

Research since Festinger’s time has refined and expanded cognitive dissonance theory. Cooper and Fazio (1984) suggested that dissonance occurs specifically when people feel personally responsible for negative consequences that result from their actions. This “new look” approach emphasizes the role of personal responsibility and foreseeability in creating dissonance.

Aronson (1992) proposed that dissonance primarily threatens people’s self-concept as moral and competent individuals. When actions contradict this positive self-image, dissonance motivates people to restore their sense of integrity. This self-consistency model helps explain why dissonance effects are often stronger when they involve important aspects of personal identity.

Recent research has also explored individual differences in dissonance tolerance. Some people appear more comfortable with contradictions and uncertainty than others. Personality factors such as need for consistency, tolerance for ambiguity, and cognitive flexibility all influence how people experience and resolve dissonance (Newby-Clark et al., 2002).

The Role of Emotion in Dissonance

While Festinger described dissonance as psychological discomfort, researchers have since identified specific emotions associated with this state. Elliot and Devine (1994) found that dissonance typically produces feelings of discomfort and distress, but the exact emotional response can vary depending on the situation and individual factors.

Studies using physiological measures have confirmed that cognitive dissonance creates genuine stress responses. Heart rate increases, skin conductance changes, and stress hormones rise when people experience dissonance. These bodily reactions support the idea that dissonance represents more than just abstract mental conflict (Croyle & Cooper, 1983).

The emotional component of dissonance helps explain why people are so motivated to resolve it. The discomfort isn’t merely intellectual; it affects people’s overall well-being and mood. This emotional drive makes dissonance reduction a priority, sometimes leading to hasty or poor decision-making as people rush to restore psychological comfort.

Neurological Basis of Cognitive Dissonance

Brain Imaging Studies

Modern neuroscience has provided new insights into the biological basis of cognitive dissonance. Brain imaging studies reveal that dissonance activates specific neural networks associated with conflict monitoring, emotional regulation, and decision-making.

The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) plays a central role in detecting conflicts between competing thoughts or impulses. When people experience dissonance, this brain region shows increased activity, suggesting it serves as an early warning system for psychological inconsistency (Botvinick et al., 2001).

The prefrontal cortex, particularly the dorsolateral and ventromedial regions, becomes active during dissonance resolution. These areas are involved in executive control, working memory, and emotion regulation. Their activation suggests that resolving dissonance requires substantial mental effort and cognitive resources (Qin et al., 2011).

Neural Networks and Dissonance Processing

Research has identified specific neural pathways involved in dissonance processing. Van Veen et al. (2009) used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study brain activity during dissonance-inducing tasks. They found that dissonance activates a network involving the ACC, insula, and prefrontal cortex.

The insula, a brain region associated with interoceptive awareness and emotional processing, shows particularly strong activation during dissonance. This finding supports the idea that dissonance involves both cognitive and emotional components. The insula may translate the abstract conflict into the subjective feeling of discomfort that motivates resolution.

Interestingly, individual differences in brain structure and function correlate with dissonance susceptibility. People with larger ACC volumes tend to be more sensitive to conflicts and inconsistencies. Those with stronger connections between prefrontal and limbic regions may be better at regulating the emotional aspects of dissonance (Kitayama et al., 2013).

Neurotransmitters and Dissonance

Several neurotransmitter systems appear to be involved in cognitive dissonance. Dopamine, associated with reward processing and motivation, may play a role in the drive to reduce dissonance. When dissonance is successfully resolved, dopamine release in reward centers could reinforce the resolution strategy used.

Serotonin, linked to mood regulation and impulse control, may influence how people cope with dissonance-related distress. Lower serotonin activity has been associated with increased susceptibility to cognitive biases and poor decision-making under stress, which could exacerbate dissonance effects (Crockett et al., 2008).

Research on neurotransmitter systems is still emerging, but these findings suggest that dissonance involves complex interactions between multiple brain networks. Understanding these biological mechanisms could lead to new approaches for helping people make better decisions and cope with internal conflicts.

Common Manifestations of Cognitive Dissonance

Decision-Making and Choice Justification

One of the most studied manifestations of cognitive dissonance occurs after making decisions. Once people choose between alternatives, they often experience post-decision dissonance, especially when the rejected option had attractive features or the chosen option had drawbacks.

To reduce this dissonance, people typically engage in “spreading of alternatives” where they increase their evaluation of the chosen option while decreasing their evaluation of rejected alternatives. A person who buys an expensive car might focus on its positive features while downplaying the financial strain it causes (Brehm, 1956).

This post-decision dissonance helps explain why people often become more committed to their choices after making them, even when objective circumstances haven’t changed. Car buyers rate their chosen vehicle more highly after purchase than before. Voters become more supportive of their candidate after voting. This psychological mechanism can lead to escalating commitment to poor decisions.

Belief Perseverance in the Face of Contrary Evidence

Cognitive dissonance plays a major role in belief perseverance, the tendency to maintain beliefs despite contradictory evidence. When people encounter information that challenges their existing beliefs, they often experience dissonance between their established views and the new evidence.

Rather than change their beliefs, people frequently engage in biased information processing. They might question the credibility of sources that contradict their views while accepting similar sources that support them. They may reinterpret ambiguous evidence in ways that confirm their existing beliefs or focus on minor flaws in challenging evidence while ignoring major flaws in supporting evidence.

This pattern helps explain why false beliefs can persist even in educated, intelligent individuals. The psychological discomfort of admitting error and changing fundamental beliefs often outweighs the intellectual appeal of accurate information. Climate change denial, vaccine hesitancy, and political polarization all involve elements of dissonance-driven belief perseverance.

Effort Justification

When people invest substantial effort or resources into achieving a goal, they often experience dissonance if the outcome doesn’t justify their investment. To reduce this dissonance, they may inflate the value of what they achieved or minimize the costs they paid.

Classic research by Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrated this effect in a study where participants underwent either mild or severe initiation to join a discussion group. Those who endured severe initiation rated the group more favorably than those with mild initiation, even though the group was deliberately designed to be boring and worthless.

This effort justification effect helps explain various real-world phenomena. Students may overvalue courses that required intensive effort. Employees might become more committed to organizations after surviving difficult training programs. Investors may refuse to sell losing stocks after putting substantial time and money into researching them.

Moral Dissonance and Ethical Decision-Making

Cognitive dissonance frequently occurs in moral and ethical contexts when people’s actions conflict with their values. Someone who values honesty but lies to protect a friend experiences moral dissonance. A person who believes in helping others but ignores someone in need faces similar conflict.

People resolve moral dissonance through various strategies. They might redefine their actions as less harmful or more justified. They may diminish the importance of the moral standard they violated. Sometimes they blame external circumstances or other people for forcing them into the situation.

Research has shown that moral dissonance can lead to escalating unethical behavior as people adjust their moral standards to match their actions rather than changing their behavior to match their standards. This helps explain how good people can gradually drift into increasingly questionable conduct without recognizing the progression (Shu et al., 2011).

Table 1: Common Cognitive Dissonance Scenarios and Resolution Strategies

Scenario	Dissonance Source	Common Resolution Strategies
Smoking despite health knowledge	Behavior conflicts with health beliefs	Minimize health risks, focus on stress relief benefits, plan to quit “someday”
Expensive purchase regret	Financial wisdom conflicts with spending	Emphasize product benefits, compare to more expensive alternatives, justify as investment
Supporting flawed political candidate	Values conflict with candidate’s actions	Minimize importance of flaws, emphasize opponent’s worse qualities, focus on policy agreement
Staying in unsatisfying job	Career goals conflict with current situation	Emphasize job security, focus on learning opportunities, blame external job market
Environmental concern vs. lifestyle	Environmental values conflict with consumption	Offset behaviors, blame corporations, minimize individual impact

Applications and Use Cases

Educational Settings

Understanding cognitive dissonance has important implications for education. Students often experience dissonance when encountering information that challenges their preexisting beliefs or when their academic performance doesn’t match their self-concept as smart or capable students.

Educators can use dissonance constructively by creating carefully structured challenges that motivate learning without overwhelming students. When students recognize inconsistencies in their knowledge or understanding, the resulting dissonance can motivate them to seek new information and develop more accurate mental models.

However, educators must be careful not to create too much dissonance too quickly. When the gap between students’ existing beliefs and new information is too large, they may reject the new information entirely rather than experience prolonged discomfort. Gradual introduction of challenging concepts with adequate support helps students work through dissonance productively (Piaget, 1977).

Research has also shown that making students aware of cognitive dissonance processes can improve their critical thinking skills. When students understand how their minds naturally resist contradictory information, they become better at evaluating evidence objectively and recognizing their own biases.

Therapeutic Applications

Cognitive dissonance theory has influenced various therapeutic approaches, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Therapists often help clients recognize inconsistencies between their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as a starting point for change.

For example, a client who believes they are worthless but has evidence of personal accomplishments experiences dissonance. Rather than resolving this by dismissing their accomplishments, therapy can help them recognize the inconsistency and develop more realistic self-perceptions.

Motivational interviewing, an approach used in addiction treatment, deliberately creates dissonance between clients’ values and their substance use behaviors. By helping clients articulate their goals and values while examining how their drinking or drug use interferes with these priorities, therapists can motivate change without direct confrontation (Miller & Rollnick, 2012).

Some therapeutic approaches also use dissonance to challenge dysfunctional beliefs. When clients hold rigid, unhelpful beliefs, therapists may present evidence or experiences that create dissonance, then support clients in developing more flexible and adaptive thinking patterns.

Marketing and Consumer Behavior

Marketers have long understood and exploited cognitive dissonance in various ways. Post-purchase dissonance is a particular concern in marketing because buyers who experience regret may return products, seek refunds, or share negative experiences with others.

Many marketing strategies aim to reduce post-purchase dissonance. Follow-up communications emphasize the wisdom of the customer’s choice. Warranties and guarantees reduce the risk of buyer’s remorse. Loyalty programs create additional justifications for choosing particular brands.

Marketers also create dissonance to motivate purchases. Advertising might highlight inconsistencies between consumers’ values and their current behavior, then present the product as a solution. Environmental appeals create dissonance between people’s environmental concerns and their consumption patterns, positioning eco-friendly products as dissonance-reducing solutions.

However, ethical concerns arise when marketers deliberately create unnecessary dissonance or exploit people’s psychological vulnerabilities. Understanding dissonance processes helps both marketers develop effective strategies and consumers recognize and resist manipulative tactics.

Organizational Management

Cognitive dissonance affects workplace behavior in numerous ways. Employees may experience dissonance when their job duties conflict with their values, when they must implement decisions they disagree with, or when their performance doesn’t match their self-concept.

Managers can reduce destructive dissonance by ensuring clear communication about organizational values and expectations, providing adequate training and resources for job performance, and creating systems for employees to voice concerns about ethical conflicts.

Organizational change initiatives often create dissonance as employees must adapt to new procedures, technologies, or cultural norms. Change management strategies that acknowledge this dissonance and provide support for working through it tend to be more successful than those that ignore the psychological challenges of change.

Research has also shown that involving employees in decision-making processes can reduce dissonance. When people participate in creating policies or procedures, they experience less conflict between their preferences and organizational requirements (Kiesler, 1971).

Comparison with Related Psychological Concepts

Cognitive Dissonance vs. Confirmation Bias

Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are related but distinct psychological phenomena. Confirmation bias refers to the tendency to seek information that confirms existing beliefs while avoiding information that challenges them. Cognitive dissonance occurs after people encounter contradictory information, creating psychological discomfort.

While confirmation bias helps people avoid dissonance by filtering information, it doesn’t explain what happens when contradictory information gets through. Cognitive dissonance theory addresses the psychological processes that occur when people can’t ignore inconsistent information.

Both concepts involve motivated reasoning, but they operate at different stages of information processing. Confirmation bias affects what information people seek and attend to, while cognitive dissonance affects how they respond to conflicting information they’ve already encountered.

Understanding both concepts provides a more complete picture of how people maintain their beliefs and resist change. Confirmation bias serves as a first line of defense against challenging information, while dissonance reduction mechanisms provide backup strategies when that defense fails.

Self-Justification vs. Self-Serving Bias

Self-justification, a key component of dissonance reduction, differs from self-serving bias in important ways. Self-serving bias involves attributing positive outcomes to internal factors and negative outcomes to external factors, regardless of whether dissonance is present.

Self-justification specifically occurs in response to dissonance and involves rationalizing decisions or behaviors that created psychological conflict. While self-serving bias operates continuously, self-justification is triggered by specific inconsistencies or threats to self-concept.

For example, a student who fails an exam might blame the teacher or unfair questions due to self-serving bias. But if the same student had previously boasted about not studying, they might engage in self-justification by claiming the material was unnecessarily difficult or that grades don’t reflect real intelligence.

Both processes protect self-esteem, but self-justification specifically addresses the discomfort created by internal contradictions. Understanding this distinction helps in predicting when people will engage in various forms of biased thinking.

Dissonance vs. Balance Theory

Fritz Heider’s balance theory preceded and influenced Festinger’s dissonance theory. Balance theory focuses on relationships between people and their attitudes toward objects or other people, while dissonance theory addresses inconsistencies within an individual’s cognitive system.

Balance theory predicts that people prefer balanced relationship structures. If Sarah likes Tom and Tom likes classical music, balance theory suggests Sarah will develop positive attitudes toward classical music. If relationships are unbalanced, tension results.

Cognitive dissonance theory encompasses a broader range of inconsistencies, including conflicts between attitudes and behaviors, between different beliefs, or between beliefs and new information. While balance theory focuses primarily on social relationships, dissonance theory addresses any form of cognitive inconsistency.

Both theories assume people are motivated to maintain psychological harmony, but they differ in scope and specific predictions. Dissonance theory has proven more influential in modern psychology due to its broader applicability and stronger empirical support.

Challenges and Limitations

Measurement Difficulties

One of the primary challenges in studying cognitive dissonance involves measurement. Dissonance is an internal psychological state that can’t be observed directly. Researchers must rely on self-reports, physiological measures, or behavioral indicators, each with limitations.

Self-report measures may be influenced by social desirability bias, where people report what they think they should feel rather than what they actually feel. People may also lack awareness of their internal states or be motivated to minimize admissions of internal conflict.

Physiological measures like heart rate or skin conductance can indicate arousal or stress but don’t specifically measure dissonance. Many factors can cause similar physiological responses, making it difficult to isolate dissonance effects from other sources of arousal.

Behavioral measures, such as attitude change following dissonance-inducing experiences, provide indirect evidence but don’t directly assess the psychological discomfort that supposedly drives the behavior. Alternative explanations for attitude change may not involve dissonance at all.

Individual and Cultural Differences

Research has revealed substantial individual and cultural differences in dissonance susceptibility and resolution strategies. Some people appear more tolerant of contradictions and inconsistencies than others. Cultural factors also influence how people experience and resolve dissonance.

Individuals with higher need for consistency show stronger dissonance effects, while those comfortable with ambiguity may experience less discomfort from contradictions. Personality factors like self-esteem, anxiety levels, and cognitive flexibility all moderate dissonance processes.

Cultural differences present additional complications. Western cultures that emphasize individual consistency and personal responsibility may produce stronger dissonance effects than cultures that view contradictions as natural or emphasize social harmony over personal consistency (Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005).

These individual and cultural differences limit the generalizability of dissonance research. Findings from studies with Western college students may not apply to other populations, requiring careful consideration of context when interpreting results.

Alternative Explanations

Many phenomena attributed to cognitive dissonance can be explained by alternative psychological processes. Self-perception theory, proposed by Daryl Bem (1972), suggests that people infer their attitudes from observing their own behavior rather than experiencing discomfort from inconsistencies.

According to self-perception theory, someone who complies with a small request may subsequently agree to larger requests not because of dissonance reduction but because they’ve observed themselves being helpful and inferred that they must be helpful people.

Impression management theory proposes that apparent attitude change following dissonance-inducing experiences actually reflects people’s desire to appear consistent to others rather than genuine psychological discomfort. People may express different attitudes publicly while maintaining their original private beliefs.

These alternative explanations highlight the complexity of human psychology and the difficulty of isolating specific causal mechanisms. While cognitive dissonance remains a useful concept, researchers must consider multiple possible explanations for observed phenomena.

Ethical Concerns in Research

Studying cognitive dissonance often requires creating psychological discomfort in research participants, raising ethical concerns about potential harm. Classic dissonance studies involved deception, induced failures, or forced participants to act against their values.

Modern research ethics standards require careful consideration of risks and benefits, informed consent processes, and debriefing procedures to minimize potential harm. However, creating genuine dissonance may be necessary for valid research, creating tension between scientific rigor and participant welfare.

Some researchers have turned to correlational studies or natural experiments to avoid ethical concerns, but these approaches limit the ability to establish causal relationships. Field studies may provide more realistic settings but raise additional ethical issues about consent and privacy.

Balancing scientific advancement with ethical responsibility remains an ongoing challenge in dissonance research. Researchers must carefully weigh the potential benefits of their work against the risks to participants while maintaining methodological rigor.

Recent Research and Developments

Neuroscientific Advances

Recent neuroscientific research has provided new insights into the biological basis of cognitive dissonance. Advanced brain imaging techniques have identified specific neural networks involved in dissonance processing and resolution.

Studies using real-time fMRI feedback have begun exploring whether people can learn to recognize and control their dissonance responses. Early results suggest that increased awareness of brain activity during dissonance may help people make more rational decisions and resist automatic bias responses (Harmon-Jones et al., 2015).

Research on neurotransmitter systems has revealed the role of dopamine in dissonance resolution. When people successfully reduce dissonance, dopamine release in reward centers reinforces the resolution strategy, potentially making similar responses more likely in the future.

These neurological findings support the reality of dissonance as a genuine psychological phenomenon while providing new avenues for understanding individual differences and developing interventions.

Digital Age Applications

The digital age has created new contexts for cognitive dissonance while providing new tools for studying it. Social media platforms create environments where people encounter diverse viewpoints, potentially increasing dissonance-inducing situations.

However, algorithm-driven content filtering may actually reduce dissonance by creating echo chambers where people primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs. This technological confirmation bias may prevent the dissonance that could motivate belief updating and learning.

Researchers are studying how digital technologies affect dissonance processes. Online environments may change how people process contradictory information, potentially making dissonance reduction easier through selective exposure to supporting information.

Virtual reality technology offers new possibilities for dissonance research by creating controlled environments where researchers can manipulate variables while maintaining ecological validity. These tools may help address some of the methodological challenges that have plagued dissonance research.

Cross-Cultural Studies

Recent cross-cultural research has expanded our understanding of how dissonance operates across different cultural contexts. Studies comparing individualistic and collectivistic cultures have revealed important differences in dissonance susceptibility and resolution strategies.

Members of collectivistic cultures may experience less dissonance from personal inconsistencies but more dissonance from social or group-related conflicts. Cultural values about consistency, harmony, and individual autonomy all influence how dissonance is experienced and resolved.

These cultural differences have important implications for applying dissonance theory in international contexts. Educational programs, therapeutic interventions, and organizational strategies that work in one culture may be less effective in others due to different dissonance patterns.

Research has also explored how cultural change affects dissonance processes. As societies become more interconnected and diverse, people may encounter more dissonance-inducing situations, potentially affecting psychological well-being and social cohesion.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is cognitive dissonance always harmful or maladaptive?

A: No, cognitive dissonance is not always harmful. While it can lead to self-deception and poor decision-making, it also serves important psychological functions. Dissonance can motivate people to examine their beliefs, seek new information, and make positive changes. The key is recognizing when dissonance reduction serves adaptive purposes versus when it interferes with accurate thinking and effective behavior.

Q: Can people learn to tolerate cognitive dissonance better?

A: Research suggests that people can develop greater tolerance for contradictions and uncertainty through practice and training. Mindfulness meditation, critical thinking education, and exposure to diverse viewpoints may help people become more comfortable with cognitive inconsistencies. However, completely eliminating dissonance responses may not be desirable since they can motivate important learning and change.

Q: How does cognitive dissonance differ from simply being wrong about something?

A: Cognitive dissonance specifically involves the psychological discomfort that results from holding contradictory cognitions simultaneously. Someone can be wrong about a fact without experiencing dissonance if they’re unaware of contradictory evidence. Dissonance occurs when people recognize inconsistencies but feel conflicted about how to resolve them.

Q: Why do intelligent people sometimes maintain obviously false beliefs?

A: Intelligence doesn’t protect against cognitive dissonance. In fact, highly intelligent people may be better at generating sophisticated rationalizations for their beliefs, making them more resistant to change. Emotional investment in particular beliefs, social pressure, and identity considerations can all override logical analysis, even in very smart individuals.

Q: Can cognitive dissonance be measured objectively?

A: Measuring cognitive dissonance presents ongoing challenges since it involves internal psychological states. Researchers use various approaches including self-report questionnaires, physiological measures like heart rate and skin conductance, brain imaging techniques, and behavioral indicators. Each method has limitations, and researchers often use multiple measures to build stronger evidence.

Q: How does social media affect cognitive dissonance?

A: Social media creates complex effects on cognitive dissonance. On one hand, it exposes people to diverse viewpoints that could create dissonance. On the other hand, algorithm-driven content curation often creates echo chambers that reduce exposure to contradictory information. The net effect likely depends on how people use these platforms and their individual preferences for information diversity.

Q: Are there cultural differences in how people experience cognitive dissonance?

A: Yes, substantial cultural differences exist in dissonance experiences. Cultures that emphasize individual consistency and personal responsibility tend to show stronger dissonance effects. Collectivistic cultures may experience less dissonance from personal contradictions but more from social conflicts. Cultural values about harmony, consistency, and individual autonomy all influence dissonance processes.

Q: Can understanding cognitive dissonance improve decision-making?

A: Research suggests that awareness of dissonance processes can improve decision-making by helping people recognize their biases and consider alternative viewpoints more objectively. However, intellectual understanding doesn’t automatically prevent dissonance effects. Developing better decision-making skills requires ongoing practice and conscious effort to apply this knowledge.

References

Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psychological Inquiry, 3(4), 303-311.

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177-181.

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62.

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384-389.

Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 229-266.

Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Tabibnia, G., Lieberman, M. D., & Robbins, T. W. (2008). Serotonin modulates behavioral reactions to unfairness. Science, 320(5884), 1739.

Croyle, R. T., & Cooper, J. (1983). Dissonance arousal: Physiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 782-791.

Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 382-394.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Levy, N. (2015). An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 363-369.

Hoshino-Browne, E., Zanna, A. S., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Kitayama, S., & Lackenbauer, S. (2005). On the cultural guises of cognitive dissonance: The case of Easterners and Westerners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 294-310.

Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment: Experiments linking behavior to belief. Academic Press.

Kitayama, S., Chua, H. F., Tompson, S., & Han, S. (2013). Neural mechanisms of dissonance: An fMRI investigation of choice justification. NeuroImage, 69, 206-212.

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. Guilford Press.

Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 157-166.

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking Press.

Qin, J., Kimel, S., Kitayama, S., Wang, X., Yang, X., & Han, S. (2011). How choice modifies preference: Neural correlates of choice justification. NeuroImage, 55(1), 240-246.

Shu, L. L., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 330-349.

Van Veen, V., Krug, M. K., Schooler, J. W., & Carter, C. S. (2009). Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance. Nature Neuroscience, 12(11), 1469-1474.