Essay on Cognitive Dissonance vs. Symbolic Interactionism
Since the beginning of mankind, there have always been different ways of communicating. Just as there have been different ways, there have also been different theories. Each of these theories can be separated into a different category: objective or interpretive. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast objective and interpretive theories using two theories in communication. The theory of Cognitive Dissonance (objective) and the theory of Symbolic Interactionism (interpretive) show a clear picture of the relationship between objective theories and interpretive theories.
According to Griffin (2003), there are five standards for a strong objective theory: an explanation of data, a prediction for the future, a relatively simple concept, an easily tested hypothesis, and practical utility (p.39). The theory of Cognitive Dissonance embodies all of these aspects. All experiments done on Cognitive Dissonance have given clear explanations of the data. Murray and Hernstein (1995) described an idea that all individuals could be placed in five “cognitive classes” based on I.Q. levels (p.14). Their essay clearly states an explanation of their reasoning and the information gathered. Cognitive Dissonance is used to predict the future in many ways. Parish (1996) states that the term refers to the fact that individuals make a sort of commitment to a position on an issue, “and that commitment is thought to shape these individuals’ future attitudes” (p.565). The idea of Cognitive Dissonance is relatively simple. Stice (1992) defines the theory as when “a person will experience a state of negative emotional arousal when two of their cognitions are inconsistent” (p.69). This is relatively easy for most people to comprehend. Finally, not only has the hypothesis been tested and explored over and over again, proving it’s simplicity, but it also has practical utility.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
According to Joule (2001), the theory can be “applied with many paradigms (decision making, selective information search, etc.)” (p.839). Cognitive Dissonance can be used to prove, as well as shape, the idea of objective theories.
Although Symbolic Interactionism, an interpretive theory, is similar to Cognitive Dissonance, an objective theory, in many ways, they are also very different.
According to Griffin, a good interpretive theory also has five important standards: a new understanding of people, clarification of values, aesthetic appeal, community of agreement, and reform of society (p.44). These five principles are similar to, and can often be related to, the five principles for objective theories. First of all, by giving an explanation, one creates an understanding. Second, prediction and clarification of values both help look at the future. Third, for most people, especially students, if something is simple, it also contains aesthetic appeal.
Fourth, if one is testing hypotheses, he is also achieving a community of agreement by proving an idea. Finally, a theory that creates a reform in society is highly practical (p.48). Symbolic Interactionism introduces two sides of a person: the I and the me. According to Lane (2001), the me “is formed through the many self-in-role experiences encountered throughout life” and the I is “the center of creativity and synergetic insights” and also “the growing edge of the self-as-object” (p.272). Thus, these two, separate “selves” aid in giving a new understanding of people. It also gives a clear explanation- just as an objective theory would do. The aesthetic appeal of Symbolic Interactionism results from its interesting concept and its ability to help people learn from others as well as their own experiences. As stated by Esposito (2001), it is used “to gain insight into the discourses and lines of human action” (p.301). This insight helps lead to a deeper simplicity in life- just as Cognitive Dissonance does. By understanding people’s actions, one can therefore have a deeper understanding of life. When it comes to clarification of values, Symbolic Interactionism aids in describing the way individuals discover themselves. As found in a study done by Lopata (2003), women living in suburban unemployment “perceived their roles and changes in themselves with entrance into wifehood and motherhood” (p.159). Just as Cognitive Dissonance will predict an individual’s attitude toward a decision, Lopata’s study shows how Symbolic Interactionism can predict an individual’s change when interacting with others. Finally, Symbolic Interactionism creates many reforms in society. Longmore (1998) has found that the theory “has been most influential among American sociologists specializing in social psychology” (p.44). Therefore, the ideas from Symbolic Interactionism are being spread throughout America in textbooks and journals creating new ideas and, furthermore, a reform in society.
In conclusion, Symbolic Interactionism and Cognitive Dissonance, one being interpretive and the other objective, can be compared in many ways. The five principles required for both interpretive and objective theories can be interconnected in many ways, thus proving the likenesses of Symbolic Interactionism and Cognitive Dissonance. Whereas Cognitive Dissonance is mostly within an individual (having regrets in their own minds about a decision they have made), Symbolic Interactionism requires the actions and affects of outside individuals on personal lives (individuals changing their attitudes or perspectives based on the influence from other people). Both of these theories in communication have a huge impact on people and society as a whole. They both closely follow the principles required for their specified category and, through this, one can find a nice comparison.
According to Griffin (2003), there are five standards for a strong objective theory: an explanation of data, a prediction for the future, a relatively simple concept, an easily tested hypothesis, and practical utility (p.39). The theory of Cognitive Dissonance embodies all of these aspects. All experiments done on Cognitive Dissonance have given clear explanations of the data. Murray and Hernstein (1995) described an idea that all individuals could be placed in five “cognitive classes” based on I.Q. levels (p.14). Their essay clearly states an explanation of their reasoning and the information gathered. Cognitive Dissonance is used to predict the future in many ways. Parish (1996) states that the term refers to the fact that individuals make a sort of commitment to a position on an issue, “and that commitment is thought to shape these individuals’ future attitudes” (p.565). The idea of Cognitive Dissonance is relatively simple. Stice (1992) defines the theory as when “a person will experience a state of negative emotional arousal when two of their cognitions are inconsistent” (p.69). This is relatively easy for most people to comprehend. Finally, not only has the hypothesis been tested and explored over and over again, proving it’s simplicity, but it also has practical utility.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
According to Joule (2001), the theory can be “applied with many paradigms (decision making, selective information search, etc.)” (p.839). Cognitive Dissonance can be used to prove, as well as shape, the idea of objective theories.
Although Symbolic Interactionism, an interpretive theory, is similar to Cognitive Dissonance, an objective theory, in many ways, they are also very different.
According to Griffin, a good interpretive theory also has five important standards: a new understanding of people, clarification of values, aesthetic appeal, community of agreement, and reform of society (p.44). These five principles are similar to, and can often be related to, the five principles for objective theories. First of all, by giving an explanation, one creates an understanding. Second, prediction and clarification of values both help look at the future. Third, for most people, especially students, if something is simple, it also contains aesthetic appeal.
Fourth, if one is testing hypotheses, he is also achieving a community of agreement by proving an idea. Finally, a theory that creates a reform in society is highly practical (p.48). Symbolic Interactionism introduces two sides of a person: the I and the me. According to Lane (2001), the me “is formed through the many self-in-role experiences encountered throughout life” and the I is “the center of creativity and synergetic insights” and also “the growing edge of the self-as-object” (p.272). Thus, these two, separate “selves” aid in giving a new understanding of people. It also gives a clear explanation- just as an objective theory would do. The aesthetic appeal of Symbolic Interactionism results from its interesting concept and its ability to help people learn from others as well as their own experiences. As stated by Esposito (2001), it is used “to gain insight into the discourses and lines of human action” (p.301). This insight helps lead to a deeper simplicity in life- just as Cognitive Dissonance does. By understanding people’s actions, one can therefore have a deeper understanding of life. When it comes to clarification of values, Symbolic Interactionism aids in describing the way individuals discover themselves. As found in a study done by Lopata (2003), women living in suburban unemployment “perceived their roles and changes in themselves with entrance into wifehood and motherhood” (p.159). Just as Cognitive Dissonance will predict an individual’s attitude toward a decision, Lopata’s study shows how Symbolic Interactionism can predict an individual’s change when interacting with others. Finally, Symbolic Interactionism creates many reforms in society. Longmore (1998) has found that the theory “has been most influential among American sociologists specializing in social psychology” (p.44). Therefore, the ideas from Symbolic Interactionism are being spread throughout America in textbooks and journals creating new ideas and, furthermore, a reform in society.
In conclusion, Symbolic Interactionism and Cognitive Dissonance, one being interpretive and the other objective, can be compared in many ways. The five principles required for both interpretive and objective theories can be interconnected in many ways, thus proving the likenesses of Symbolic Interactionism and Cognitive Dissonance. Whereas Cognitive Dissonance is mostly within an individual (having regrets in their own minds about a decision they have made), Symbolic Interactionism requires the actions and affects of outside individuals on personal lives (individuals changing their attitudes or perspectives based on the influence from other people). Both of these theories in communication have a huge impact on people and society as a whole. They both closely follow the principles required for their specified category and, through this, one can find a nice comparison.
___________________________________________________________
Warning!!! All free online essays, sample essays and essay examples on any writing topics are plagiarized and cannot be completely used in your school, college or university education.
If you need a custom essay, dissertation, thesis, term paper or research paper on your topic, EffectivePapers.com will write your papers from scratch. We work with experienced PhD and Master's freelance writers to help you with writing any academic papers in any subject! We guarantee each customer great quality and no plagiarism!
___________________________________________________________
