Tavris And Aronson Summary

This shows that a copious amount of students have described themselves above average when there can only be half of them above average in order to maintain the average. This means that a lot students have high self-esteem and are becoming narcissistic, which means that some of them would not get what they expected. The students would either hurt themselves when they fail or hurt others with their behavior if they succeed. Therefore, self-esteem is dangerous and destructive. After that, Kremer asserts, " ‘An intervention that encourages [students] to feel good about themselves, regardless of work, may remove the reason to work hard,’ writes Baumeister” (3). This means students with high self-esteem are hindered to work hard because they are confident about their skills that they think they do not need to work hard and be assiduous. This shows that self-esteem is not crucial to success and academic achievement.

Cognitive dissonance theory is based on several fundamental assumptions. One is that humans are sensitive to the inconsistencies between actions and beliefs. Accordingly, we all recognize when we are acting in a manner that is consistent with our attitudes. Secondly, the recognition will definitely lead to dissonance that will drive the persons involved to resolve the situation (Gladwell, 2005). This dissonance can be solved through change beliefs, change actions and change perception of action. The individual in this case has to be

Cognitive Dissonance is a tense discomfort that we get when we realize that we have made a mistake or have committed hypocrisy. There are several different ways that we get rid of cognitive dissonance, some of them include a change in behavior, denial, and excuse making. In this essay I will discuss cognitive dissonance, its consequences, and how to solve the problem of excuse making in our society.

The researchers conducted this study to determine if an individual’s perception would change through forced acceptance and pressure on behavior. The researchers were trying to predict how dissonance would effect an individual’s own opinion when they go against their own opinion. Concerning cognitive dissonance theory was used in the experiment. The hypothesis of this study is the amount of reward offered to form a conflicting opinion based on their initial opinion through forced behavior.

Rationalization occurs as a result of a person attempting to explain or create an excuse for an event or action in rational terms. In doing so, they are able to avoid accepting the true cause or reason that has resulted in the persons present situation. For example, a shoplifter that blames their action of theft on greedy capitalists who care more about making money than making goods affordable. Rationalization is a widely used defense mechanism, especially in attempts to excuse mistakes to avoid condemnation by others and themselves. A common example of rationalization is expressed in the adage, “sour grapes”. An example of rationalization that I have witnessed is someone that I know who refuses to stop smoking because she is going to inevitably die one day. She excuses her addiction by dismissing its harmful effects and uses the unavailability of death as the rationalization to continue her behavior.

‘Reasons are bullshit’, is one, and not the last clear opinion author Bernard Roth gives in his book ’The Achievement Habit’. ‘The Achievement Habit’ is full of Roth’s opinions where you begin to think to yourself  ‘is he right?’ ‘Is he wrong?’

This philosophical study will define the traditional theory of Justified True Belief (JTB) that Edmund L. Gettier refutes by proposing countermanding methods of justification in the acquisition of knowledge. JTB has historically defined the important equation that knowledge can be conceptually deciphered through the subjective belief of an individual. Historically, the “justification” of a belief was found to be sufficient to identify the belief as a form of objective knowledge. However, Gettier’s problem defines the limitation of belief, which can often be false through distortions of sensory perception and/or personal biases. Gettier refutes the traditional theory of justification for knowledge by exposing the subjective nature of belief as a derailment of true knowledge. Therefore, it is important to understand the missing definition of the “justification” of knowledge, which Gettier exposes in his theory against JTB. Critically, Gettier does propose a need for a more thorough examination of the classification of justification, yet he is own theory presents equally subjective limitations on the origins of knowledge through the distortions of human sensory perception. In essence, this study will define the traditional theory of Justified True Belief (JTB) that Edmund L. Gettier refutes by proposing countermanding methods of justification in the acquisition of knowledge.

Internal justifications allow the person to change the perception of their actions from immoral to moral. It provides a rationale within themselves, that then builds from their search to hold onto their belief. Clearly, internal justifications do not ensure that the justification that is thought up is moral. As a result, there is usually a cognitive dissonance that occurs because the person that attempts to make his negative behavior justifiable is in denial of a known truth.

There are many moral principles that are placed in society to keep it from going astray. Individual people interpret these principles in different ways. Asking someone if they have ever gone against their principles is much more difficult than a yes or no question. People will have a time in their life where they may go against a principle, but justify it to avoid feeling regretful. If someone beside himself or herself were to go against the same principle, there wouldn’t be the same justification. Cognitive dissonance is the phenomena of contradictory beliefs or principles in the mind. A person who does the opposite of a principle they believe will think of several reasons why in their case it was necessary to do so, where as, if other people did the same thing, it would be much worse in their eyes.

An obvious implication of cognitive dissonance theory is that if one wants to change someone’s attitude, one could try to create dissonance concerning that person’s attitude and hope that desired attitude change would result. However, there are other implications of Cognitive Dissonance as well. Much of the research on dissonance has focused on decision-making, counter-attitudinal advocacy, forced compliance, and selective exposure to information.

Diversion from normal behavior by an individual, this involves the involuntary change of someone’s usual way of doing things. This is a common scenario when someone is expected to make a choice on something (Reeves, Ch.10). When a person realizes that their actions are not in agreement with what they belief based on a choice they make, then this may be attributed to cognitive dissonance. People usually have strong beliefs on issues such as; religion, family, health, and ways of life. Changing of such beliefs in person would take effort and to some point one may never succeed. Many scholars suggest that cognitive is stronger in cases where someone beliefs something about themselves and then end doing / acting against it.

People experience cognitive dissonance when they perceive that there is a mismatch between their attitudes and behaviors. Because we are motivated to keep our cognitions consistent, the inconsistency brought about by dissonance becomes a drive that must be reduced. This is done by changing either the attitude or the behavior such that they may accurately align with each other. Eventually, the New Look model to dissonance will shift the causal path to an explanation using avoidance of aversive consequences, but still resulting in the same need to reduce cognitive inconsistency. Finally, addressing the limitations of the former, the Self-Standards approach operationalizes the nature of aversive consequences as violations of societal or

In a practical sense, cognitive dissonance reactions generally originate from the peoples' perspective of themselves, especially as intelligent and nice people. Generally, the concept or theory of cognitive dissonance helps to understand how people attempt to make sense of the world they live in. However, the theory does not precisely forecast what a person will do minimize or get rid of disagreement. This theory mainly states that a person will be stimulated to do something in order to bring attitudes and behaviors into balance. As a result of its basic focus, cognitive dissonance has significant effects on various fields, especially in risk taking at a place of employment or specific industry.

She desires to improve the reasons it is a crucial dilemma to consider and research the multiple assumptions that funnel into the perspective that she casts as equally wrong and common placed misguided.

Unfortunately, going against Ally’s beliefs, she is slowly starting to not being able to afford to buy organic food or go grocery shopping in organic stores anymore. Ally now resorts to start going to go eat at McDonalds again. Her job loss has made her actions change. Because of this action of eating fast food, she is starting to feel depressed because she is starting to feel bloating and feels unhealthy. This is an example of cognative dissonance, the distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person’s two beliefs or a