Cognitive Dissonance in Daily Life

We like to pretend that our beliefs, values, or actions align, and yet, in daily life, they often don’t. The uncomfortable friction that accompanies this contrast is the experience of cognitive dissonance, a foundational concept in social psychology that explains why humans are so adept at rationalisation and self-justification.

This psychological discomfort is not just an interesting theory; it actively shapes our decisions, our relationships, and even how we consume information. In this article, we will delve into the concept of cognitive dissonance, exploring its neuroscientific roots and discussing three common, powerful examples in modern life: the justification of effort, the moral licence paradox, and its critical role in maintaining unhealthy relationships.

Pioneered by psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950s, cognitive dissonance is defined as “the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes,” or when their behaviour contradicts one of their core beliefs. For example, a person knows smoking is harmful but continues to smoke.

This inconsistency creates an unpleasant psychological tension which the individual is powerfully driven to reduce. Critically, the drive to reduce this tension is far stronger than the drive to be objectively correct. From a neuroscientific perspective, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have shown that detecting this inconsistency triggers heightened activity in regions associated with error detection and conflict monitoring, such as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). This suggests that dissonance is literally experienced as a form of “brain pain” or uncomfortable alertness, forcing the mind to seek immediate resolution, usually through changing the belief or inventing a strong justification, rather than changing the difficult behaviour.

And it’s not just pain in the brain! A team of researchers from The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan noted that cognitive dissonance experienced during a precision lowering task increased spine loading in the neck and low back.

One of the most classic manifestations of this phenomenon is the “justification of effort.” This dissonance effect occurs when a person exerts significant effort, suffers hardship, or invests heavily in achieving a goal that, objectively, might not be worth the cost.

You spend weeks planning a surprise party. It rains, half the guests cancel, the cake melts, and the person you’re honouring shows up late and underwhelmed. Still, you insist it was amazing. “They loved it,” you say. “Totally worth it.” But deep down, you’re not sure. What you are sure of is that you can’t admit it might not have been worth the effort. Not after all that. Professor RJ Starr, ‘Effort Justification: Why We Overvalue What We’ve Worked Hard For’

To reduce the uncomfortable feeling that the effort was wasted (the belief “I suffered greatly” conflicts with “The outcome is mediocre”), the individual unconsciously inflates the value of the outcome. This resolves the dissonance by making the two cognitions consistent (“I suffered greatly, therefore the outcome must be amazing and worthwhile”).
Some examples include:

• Arduous military training
• University initiations (often the participant emerges with an inflated devotion to the group)
• Staying in a difficult or resource-draining relationship purely because of the decades of effort already invested (a concept closely related to the sunk cost fallacy)

The effort itself becomes the justification for inflating the value of the result.

The ‘moral licence’ paradox highlights how dissonance is often resolved by keeping a mental “moral ledger.” This occurs when resolving one moral inconsistency ironically permits a new one. Once we engage in a behaviour that is ethically virtuous (e.g., diligently sorting all household waste for recycling, donating a significant sum to a charity, or having a healthy meal), we feel a temporary boost in our moral self-regard. This feeling of being “good” then gives us moral licence to permit a less ethical or healthier behaviour later (e.g., making a highly questionable purchase, skipping the gym for a week, or treating oneself to excessive indulgence). The dissonance (the feeling of being bad) is preemptively resolved by balancing the ledger with the preceding good deed.

This mechanism shows that our self-regulation is often more concerned with maintaining a net positive moral self-image than with consistent ethical action.

Cognitive dissonance plays a profoundly challenging role in human relationships, particularly those involving unhealthy or abusive dynamics. A powerful conflict is created when the core belief “I love this person and they are good” clashes with the evidence “This person is consistently neglectful/harmful.”

The resulting psychological discomfort is immense, and rather than resolving it by acknowledging the relationship is unhealthy (which would mean facing pain and loss), the victim often resorts to rationalising the partner’s behaviour (“They only act like this because they are stressed”) or, more damagingly, engaging in self-blame (“If I were better/nicer, they wouldn’t treat me this way”).

This intense cognitive maintenance preserves the core belief that the relationship is worthwhile, albeit at a catastrophic cost to the victim’s own psychological safety and self-worth.

In the contemporary world, the internet and social media have weaponised dissonance by making it incredibly easy to engage in selective exposure. If a person holds a strong belief (political, social, or otherwise), the mere exposure to contradictory information creates dissonance. Rather than process the new information, the individual simply avoids it, seeking out digital echo chambers and algorithmic feeds that only reinforce their existing position. This dynamic not only entrenches individual beliefs (a process often linked to confirmation bias) but also drives political polarisation and fosters an inability to process facts outside of one’s own tribal boundary. The easy availability of information makes the avoidance of conflicting information a primary method of dissonance reduction in the digital age.

While often discussed as a driver of irrational or harmful behaviour, the inherent human need for consistency can be strategically harnessed in therapeutic settings. Therapists, particularly those using Motivational Interviewing such as Matthew Perrin, Natasha De Bellis, or Dr Narelle Duncan, or Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT), can intentionally and gently evoke dissonance to inspire positive change.

Instead of directly confronting a client about a problematic behaviour (e.g., excessive alcohol consumption), the therapist highlights the conflict between the client’s deeply held values (e.g., “I value being a reliable parent”) and their current behaviour (“My drinking prevents me from being reliable”).

By making the client aware of this internal contradiction, the therapist harnesses the client’s internal need to reduce the cognitive discomfort, effectively turning the client’s own drive for self-consistency into the primary engine for sustained behaviour change.

In conclusion, cognitive dissonance is a pervasive, powerful psychological force that governs much of our reasoning. It explains why we justify past suffering, sometimes undermine our own moral efforts, remain in complex relationships, and gravitate towards information that confirms our existing worldview. By understanding these mechanisms, we move beyond simply reacting to internal discomfort and gain the power to make conscious, rational choices. Get in touch with us if you too would like to genuinely align your well-being with your values.