This is a rough draft version of Chapter four. It has had some basic edits, but for the most part, this is published the way it was originally written, so keep that in mind as you read it. I am sure it will be a little while before this book is completed, as there are several more topics I intend to cover. Also, this will be the only sneak peek I will be sharing this time around. Anyway, I hope you get something from it. Enjoy.
So far, we have looked at propaganda and the various models of persuasive communications. In Chapter one, we broke down Edward Bernays’ description of propaganda, and how it works on the minds of the public. In Chapter’s two and three, we examined dual process and fear-based models of persuasion. We know that propaganda itself is considered a form of mass persuasion, and that as early as the 1920s, the methods of persuasion were being looked at by policy makers as a better way to influence public opinion. We are now going to look at another route of attitude change that is highly misunderstood and rarely accepted to be anyone’s personal problem. Only the problem of the other guy. This is the problem of cognitive dissonance, and the American public seems to be rife with it.
What exactly is cognitive dissonance? In today’s social media environment, you see a lot of memes depicting democrats, for example, suffering from cognitive dissonance because of the way they react to what Donald Trump is doing. Or better yet, conservatives will accuse other conservatives of having cognitive dissonance for disagreeing with Trump. Neither of these examples describe what cognitive dissonance really is, and in truth, most people ideologically rooted to their positions are suffering from it the most. So, what is it? Cognitive dissonance is a theory first proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957. The theory attempts to explain contradictions between a person’s attitudes and beliefs, and the way they may behave.[1] The most common example given in the dissonance literature pertains to smoking. For example, people know that smoking is unhealthy behavior, yet many continue to do it anyway. Dissonance occurs, according to Festinger, when people try to alleviate the discomfort that arises from the contradiction between behaviors and beliefs. Dissonance may also occur when a person is exposed to information that conflicts with what they generally believe to be true. Festinger states that dissonance is the psychological discomfort arising from the knowledge that behaviors and beliefs are not aligned, and people deal with this discomfort by either changing their beliefs or just disregarding the new information altogether.
That is something we see a lot in today’s politically charged environment. Is it not? President Trump is supported by many people who would have certainly had to ignore or brush off many inconsistencies between what they expected of him, and what is really happening. The Epstein files are but one of many examples, albeit a perfect one. The Trump administration promised voters justice, as they insisted that Epstein’s client list, which is believed to contain many important people involved in a child sex trafficking ring, was going to be made public. What they got instead seems to amount to little more than an effort to obfuscate and confuse the public, while seemingly attempting to protect, not expose, the people involved. After months of waiting, Pam Bondi insisted that there was no list to release while Donald Trump referred to the whole thing as a Democrat hoax. In fact, on a live television news broadcast he explicitly said if you believe in the Epstein hoax, he didn’t want your support anymore. This is the epitome of cognitive dissonance as many people began making excuses for this to retain their own belief that Trump is the greatest thing since apple pie. At first, there seemed to be a righteous anger among Trump loyalists over this issue. It was refreshing to see, as typically, everything he does is accepted without question as a brilliant strategy. However, that anger soon dissipated as Trump suddenly shifted focus to Obama and the Russia Gate scandal. Obama was going to be brought to justice once and for all. This was a brilliant four-dimensional chess move on the part of Trump for sure, though it was against his own supporters and not the deep state they think he is fighting.
The Obama issue resonated with voters because all throughout Trump’s first term we heard nothing but propaganda suggesting that he had colluded with the Russians to win the presidency. None of that ever made any sense. Why would the Russians want to install a brilliant capitalist business mogul, and not a communist sympathizer like Hillary Clinton? That’s another question all together, however, it is safe to say that the message was meant to confuse and overwhelm the public. On one hand, it reinforced support for Trump as the more he is opposed by Democrats the more unquestionable he becomes. On the other, it whipped up the hatred for him on the left. In other words, it is a brilliant divide and conquer strategy.
When it comes to persuasive communications, and this is a point that has been alluded to a few times already, they are constructing messages based on the belief that most people are simply not capable of understanding them. Especially when it comes to political messages. For instance, in an article entitled Persuasion, Psychology, and Public Choice,[2] the author states that the moderately aware citizenry, who believes they have a basic understanding of political processes, is the most targeted for persuasive communication strategies. This is because those on the two extremes, the ones paying no attention at all, and those deeply rooted in their political worldviews, are unlikely to need persuasion or shift their attitudes in any way. Think about that for a moment. They are deliberately targeting people that they know are mostly uneducated about the issues in question. Let’s look at Trump’s support for Red Flag Laws for a moment. As a reminder, Trump said in 2018, in response to the Parland Florida school shooting, that he likes the idea of taking guns first and going to court later. Not only did this cause a significant amount of dissonance among many of his voters, which will be discussed momentarily, it was a message targeted at those people who don’t know the real political issues in that statement. As Munger said in his article, messages are often directed to those who lack deep knowledge of policy problems, and have only partially integrated beliefs, that are easily misled and most susceptible to false arguments. You should be remembering that in an earlier chapter we looked at an another article concerning gun control that said an audience was targeted that was smart enough to understand the message, but not smart enough to know why it should be questioned.
As with the Epstein files, the same thing happened with Trump’s statement on Red Flag Laws. While some die hard second amendment supporters were alarmed by this, many people simply didn’t see the problem or brushed it off as fake news. Or believe it or not, a four-dimensional chess strategy that exposes the left. This is a great example of cognitive dissonance as many people believed that Trump was going to be the greatest president for gun rights. A belief that continues to this day, despite the contrary evidence. At the start of his new term, Trump directed Pam Bondi to undue Biden’s unconstitutional gun regulations. She has done more to uphold them than anything. Many second amendment commentators are reluctant to let the buck stop at Trump’s desk, as all the blame for this is being directed towards Bondi. Trump has said nothing.
There are many theories that are referred to as “dissonance reduction” in cognitive dissonance literature. This chapter will only focus on a few that serve this book’s purpose. One such theory is referred to as effort justification. This is to say that people may hang onto a choice of action simply because of the effort they put into it. In Beyond Freedom and Dignity[3] B.F. Skinner alludes to the idea of effort justification by pointing out a simple, and observable trait of human behavior. He says that “those who work productively because of the reinforcing value of what they produce are under the sensitive and powerful control of the products.” What does that mean? Let’s look at it from the perspective of the 2016 election. The choices, if we are to be honest, were dismal. Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump, a man that when it comes to politics no one really knows anything about. In fact, many people know that Trump was always associated with the New York Democrats, and suddenly he is being propped up not only as a Republican candidate, but the only possible chance of defeating Hillary Clinton. A woman that he has a long history with. In any case, effort justification can be summed up by saying that people will reinforce their decisions by doubling down on them if they put a lot of effort, or work, into it. Theoretically speaking, voters put a lot of effort into getting Trump elected because the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency were terrifying. This goes right along with the fear-then-relief theory mentioned earlier. This works as a dissonance reduction technique because the justification of the effort reinforces the work put into. In other words, when Trump, for example, thanked Hillary Clinton for her wonderful service to the country, instead of arresting her as promised, there was surely some dissonance because people really believed these two were ideological enemies. This dissonance was resolved by justifying their decision to support Trump because it was a better than having a Clinton presidency.
Another explanation of effort justification can be explained through the mask madness that gripped America during Covid. Mask wearing became a virtue signal of sorts. Most people realized that they were ineffective, however, they also carried a belief that they were doing their part to protect society from the non-existent threat of asymptomatic carriers. This almost certainly caused dissonance, and in an effort to reduce that feeling of psychological discomfort, people justified wearing the mask on the grounds that it was protecting society. The act of wearing a mask itself became a controlling mechanism based on a misguided belief.
Another method of dissonance reduction that is relevant here is trivialization and self-affirmation.[4] Trivialization is, of course, the idea that people, when dealing with dissonance over an issue, trivialize it by lessening its importance. A great example is Republicans and the national debt. When Obama was president, many commentators like the late Rush Limbaugh, just as an example, would point out that he had spent more money in his eight-year term than all the presidents combined. He increased the national debt by a whopping eight trillion dollars. Republicans, generally voting from a fiscal conservative position, were very disturbed by this, and rightfully so. Trump, however, in his first four years, increased the national debt by over five trillion. Many people trivialize this, to reduce dissonance, by comparing the different things that the two parties typically spend money on. Democrats usually spend us into oblivion by promoting welfare state policies that do more to incentivize dependence on government than anything. Republicans on the other hand, spend money on the security state and military readiness. Even though this is still money being spent that we don’t have to spend, Republicans tend to excuse it away as being worthy of going into debt.
In Trump’s second term he continues to increase the debt. The Big Beautiful Bill, for example, is expected to increase the national debt by another four trillion over the next decade. Theoretically speaking then, if we are going to be honest, Trump has outspent Obama. Because much of this spending is going towards things conservatives generally oppose, like the advancement of a total surveillance state, it could be argued that dissonance levels are high.
Self-affirmation alludes to the idea that dissonance could be reduced by finding a way to align beliefs with the act that is causing discomfort. Supporting the military, for example, would be a way to align one’s beliefs of being patriotic with the conflict caused by a president who is allegedly fiscally conservative, spending a ton of money on the military. Fiscal irresponsibility is something opposed by conservatives unless money is being spent on things they support. Self-affirmation is a way of asserting personal values to justify supporting something one would normally oppose. This could also be explained by pointing to the people who support the second amendment with a “but” attached. “I support gun rights, but I think some regulations are necessary to protect society.” They are asserting their own personal values about protecting society, and giving them greater significance, to reduce the dissonance they feel when facing the issue of gun control. These are usually the types of people who own a couple of dozen hunting rifles and shotguns but rarely put much thought into the real meaning of the second amendment. As mentioned earlier, this aligns with something called Moral Foundations theory.
Another model of dissonance reduction is the self-consistency model.[5] This idea suggests that a person’s moral standards are derived from the community around them. Dissonance occurs when behavior isn’t aligned with these morals, and the reduction strategy often involves defending these inconsistencies to retain a sense of self-competency. Stone and Cooper argue that an individual’s self-esteem regulates the way they deal with dissonance caused by the conflicts between behaviors and morals. For instance, a person with high self-esteem is more likely to notice the conflict and experience dissonance, meaning they are more likely to either make excuses for the behavior or change their attitudes as a reduction strategy. Low self-esteem people on the other hand, are unlikely to notice any conflict at all. Think about that for a moment. People with low self-esteem, according to this theory, are less likely to even notice a conflict between their behaviors and the morals they may adhere to. This means they will make little to no effort at all to adjust their attitudes in any way. People with higher levels of self-esteem will notice the difference but may choose to retain and make excuses for a misguided belief that may cause dissonance if it aligns with the morals of the community around them. In other words, reducing dissonance in this instance is more about fitting in, and preserving the integrity, or moral values of the group as opposed to his or her own esteem.
The social group is another major area of cognitive dissonance research−springing from self-standard theories ̶ as dissonance can occur, as mentioned briefly above, when individual behavior clashes with the standards or norms of the larger group. According to Matz and Wood,[6] dissonance can also arise in group members when one person has ideas or beliefs that go against the group standard. Stop for a moment and think about that statement. Look at how people behave when a minority of individuals hold different opinions than most of the group. The minority is often mocked or isolated by the majority. Trump supporters, for example, often attack people who question his actions by pointing out that they are not aligned with his promises. Particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment and the Epstein files. Most of the Republican base, as a social group, is behind Trump and support every move he makes. Dissonance is aroused when people go against this group idea. According to an article called “A Dissonance Theory Approach to Defensive Projection”[7] people can reduce dissonance in themselves by projecting it onto others. This is something we have seen a lot of, as many partisan loyalists from either party will often accuse the few who are asking questions of being the ones with cognitive dissonance. Interestingly, when it comes to voting there is evidence which suggests cognitive dissonance exists in those voters who are fiercely loyal to their party, and preferred candidates.[8] In fact, it has been found that dissonance reduction occurs the more people vote for their party, because they continually find reasons to assign positive evaluations to them. This is likely because so many voters have accepted the lesser of two evils excuse often assigned to an elected official who isn’t living up to their promises. For example, in 2016, Trump banned bump stocks and pushed red flag laws. People made excuses for this by saying that it is better than what Hillary Clinton would have done. Is that true? Perhaps, she is no friend of the second amendment. The little detail that everyone seems to miss though, is that if she would have won in 2016, Republicans would have been paying very close attention, and the moment she tried to ban bump stocks, they would have been up in arms.
What do any of these reduction strategies have to do with propaganda? Maybe, nothing at all. However, one of the bigger points of this book is pointing out the fact that a great deal of propaganda is the result of a careful and acute study of what the target audience already believes, so that effective messages can be developed to promote attitude change. Cognitive dissonance is seen as a potential means of changing attitudes when the individual is confronted with conflicting information. To reduce the “dissonance” he or she can either change their attitudes to align with the new information or find other ways to reduce the discomfort to justify what they currently hold as the truth. Our society is inundated with conflicting information. So much so that most of us don’t know what to believe, or how to begin researching it for ourselves. In fact, most people avoid doing so altogether, and because of this, they are highly susceptible to propaganda.[9] The overabundance of this conflicting information is surely leading to high levels of dissonance among the general population. Many people are likely to accept things as truth simply to relieve themselves of the confusion, or to keep themselves aligned with whatever group they cling to.
Interestingly, when writing this chapter, a few articles were discovered where cognitive dissonance is being used as a tool to promote attitude change in the classroom. In what way? The theory of dissonance is being taught to students as information that may contradict their beliefs and values is being presented. It is being used to potentially show students that their current beliefs are wrong, and the dissonance they feel is the result of being exposed to information that challenges those beliefs. It is a manipulative tactic. For example, one article entitled Cognitive Dissonance as a Strategy in Social Justice Teaching,[10] posted on a government website no less, does exactly that. The author, a leftwing professor at George Mason University, states that he uses cognitive dissonance to explain away the reaction his students have when he begins teaching social justice topics, like White Privilege. He admittedly begins this tactic by asking the class if they believe the founding fathers were Christians. When presenting information that he claims says otherwise, he watches the reactions of some students and then begins discussing cognitive dissonance. This is done to show justification for why the students initially reject the information, and to promote attitude change. This professor, Paul Gorski, writes that it is his job to create an environment where students can overcome what he calls ̶ intellectual or emotional body armor.
Another article worth looking at, is called Reducing Resistance to Diversity Through Cognitive Dissonance Instruction: Implications for Teacher Education.[11] This paper revolves around cognitive dissonance as a means of overcoming resistance to multicultural education, and was published in The Journal of Teacher Education, of all places. This means that other teachers are being exposed to and taught how to use this method of instruction. The author writes that creating an awareness of dissonance – or discussing cognitive dissonance – before the students automatically resist what they are being taught, could be a good strategy to get them to reflect on what they are hearing, encourage critical thinking, and create a classroom environment conducive to learning. All of this is fine; however, they are being manipulated into believing their initial reactions to what they are hearing are wrong, or worse yet, racist and bigoted. To illustrate this, the authors use the essay White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, by Peggy McIntosh. Ironically, this is the same essay this writer had to write a position paper on when told he wasn’t fit to be in the social work program at NSU in 2010. The paper being discussed was published almost a decade earlier, in 2001. The authors discuss an experiment that they conducted by having students write their own response to the Mcintosh essay. These responses were analyzed in terms of agreement/disagreement to discern how effective the introduction of cognitive dissonance theory was in lowering resistance to their indoctrinating lessons. The results were interesting. First, the authors said that more research is needed on how to obtain an accurate measurement of potential resistance levels before and after the topic of cognitive dissonance is introduced. It was found, however, that students who were exposed to dissonance education were less resistant to the ideas in multicultural education than students who were not exposed to it. In other words, they are studying how to most effectively get your children or grandchildren, to discard their own values and beliefs and willingly adopt new ideas under the guise of being told, their resistance is cognitive dissonance.
This chapter was finished while the turmoil over the Epstein files was breaking out in the Republican party. Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Green and Thomas Massie have been targeted by Donald Trump as he threatens anyone who supports releasing the files to the public. Ironically, social media is filled with posts written by Trump loyalists who insist on standing with him because he continues to fight the good fight. One must wonder what the statement “If you believe in the Epstein Hoax, I don’t want your support,” means to them. Trump was elected both times because his voters whole heartedly believed he was working to drain the swamp and bring justice to a deeply corrupted system. What seems to be happening, however, is that the administration is working to protect anyone involved in the Epstein situation. Trump has gone from release the files, to calling it a hoax, to threatening to primary anyone who supports their release, to launching another so-called investigation into Bill Clinton and his involvement with Epstein. This is like the strategy he employed earlier with promises to investigate Obama and his involvement with the Russia Gate scandal. An investigation that surely, many people are still sitting on the edge of their seats for. It’s brilliant, really. Most republicans already believed that Trump was going to go after these people. That is why he was elected. As long as they are holding onto the “4D Chess, trust the plan” narrative, they will continue to be susceptible to this type of propaganda because the message is resonating with the known pre-existing cognitive biases of the audiences. That is how propaganda works and we are witnessing it in real time.
Another thing to consider is that Trump is hiding behind a popular narrative that people are eating up, one that is a telltale sign of propaganda. Everything he does, everything, is a historic achievement on an unprecedented scale. The economy is historic, he has stopped nine wars, investment in America is at historic, never before seen levels, inflation is the lowest it’s ever been, the list goes on and on. This narrative began almost immediately after his 2016 victory as Rush Limbaugh, and other talking head pundits began commenting on how Trump immediately repaired Obama’s economy. There was no one that held Trump to account for anything. All conservative news, whether in the mainstream or alternative media, was geared towards creating the perception that Trump was fixing everything.
It is hard to know how many people are really holding onto the Trump dream as the internet is awash with bots and trolls. It is getting to the point where determining what is real or AI is becoming impossible, as is the case with comments made under social media posts. There are also many influencers out there who are, without a doubt, paid propagandists working to maintain a narrative. These people exist on both sides of the political aisle, and both are promoting their own brand of statism.
Still, many Americans are buying into the idea that Trump is executing a grand strategy to save the county. Their heads are surely spinning as they must wrestle with the possibility that nothing is what they thought it was. Whether they accept it or not will have a huge effect on the future of the country as the propagandists will be further rooted in their belief that we are susceptible to their methods. This isn’t to say that this writer believes everything in the media, just that some things are always too good to be true. The idea of a hero swooping into save us from the corrupted deep state, when he has been friends with some of those people his whole life, is one of those things. The idea of Donald Trump arresting Hillary Clinton, when her and Bill were honored guests at his wedding, is also.
Cognitive dissonance is running rampant in the American population. It is quite possible that there is a deliberate attempt to flood the American mind with so much contradictory information just to see how we respond to it. Many Republicans seem to be employing the effort justification strategy of reducing their dissonance, as all the hopes and dreams that were placed in Trump are on the line, and they don’t want to admit they might equate to nothing. Furthermore, Americans are always quick to say that whatever is happening in the media is being used to distract us from something bigger they don’t want us to see. Except for whatever story seems to be dominating the media at the time. People are heavily invested in the Epstein issue because of what it entails. A massive sex trafficking scandal possibly implicating some of the most powerful people in the world, including American presidents. They wouldn’t be using this issue to distract us from something else. Would they? Time will surely tell. Until then, at the very least, it promises to be entertaining.
[1] Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press
[2] Munger, M., C. (2011) Persuasion, Psychology, and Public Choice. The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 80, pp. 290-300
[3] Skinner, B, F. (1971) Beyond freedom and dignity. Middlesex England: Penguin books ltd.
[4] McGrath, A. (2017) Dealing with Dissonance: A Review of Cognitive Dissonance Reduction. Social Personality and Psychology Compass.
[5] Thibodeau, R., & Aronson, E. (1992). Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 591–602.
[6] Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 22–37.
[7] Bramel, D. (1962) A dissonance theory approach to defensive projection. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 121-129.
[8] Bolstad, J., Dinas, E. & Riera, P. (2013) Tactical Voting and Party Preferences: A Test of Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Political Behavior, 35, 429–452.
[9] Taillard, M. & Giscoppa, H. (2013) Psychology and Modern Warfare: Idea Management in Conflict and Competition. Palgrave McMillan
[10] Gorski, C, P. (2009) Cognitive Dissonance as a Strategy in Social Justice Teaching. Promising Practices.
[11] McFalls, E.L., & Cobb-Roberts, D. (2001) Reducing Resistance to Diversity Through Cognitive Dissonance Instruction: Implications for Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2) pp. 164-172
