0
$\begingroup$

It seems that according to the cognitive dissonance theory, when a person perceives an undeniable piece of information, but contradicts to their belief, it will create stress. They will either justify their existing belief and ignore the new one, or investigate the new information if there is a motivation to do that. In the case it evokes negative emotions (from past sufferings, say), and especially with emotional reasoning, it is very likely that they will ignore the new one. However, they at least have noticed the existence of the information.

My questions: how do they process the contradictory information after the reaction? It is commonly said that the person will think about it again, even years of forgotten, and we just need to be patient. But exactly how that process works? What factors will make them ignore it and done, and what factors can trigger the thinking that they are irrational? How would the feeling of being irrational work?

To reduce the number of variables, consider these conditions:

  • The information is truly undeniable (the information provides sources they trust (e.g. "Tom agrees with this too"), or links to check)
  • There is no reminder from other relationships (no other people they trust talks about this, including Tom)
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please reword this question in a few ways? "how do they process it.." What is it?; "think again" think what?; quarantine is not the right word... perhaps 'focus on'? Note also that no information is undeniable, and that irrational seems to be a label that OTHERS would use, not the person themselves in their experience. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Brick yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @CameronBrick I'll answer each question: "how do they process it.." What is it? – the information; "think again" think what? – the piece of information the deny initially; quarantine is not the right word... perhaps 'focus on'? I mean to reduce the number of variables, so that we can control the situation as much as possible. By undeniable or irrational, I mean the person would later accept that themselves. Is that clearer? $\endgroup$ – Ooker yesterday
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ thank you for replying. "the information" is still vague I'm afraid. People change beliefs regularly. This is often accompanied by a false memory of originally having beliefs closer to the current position. Many beliefs are irreconcilable. The question is still phrased quite confusingly; you may not get useful answers in the current form. I suggest a general psychological review on beliefs and/or belief change. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Brick yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ @CameronBrick let's say we transmit the information via text (like chat). Would that eliminate the false memory? Anyhow, where should I look at belief change? I suppose it would be a cognitive-social issue? $\endgroup$ – Ooker yesterday
  • $\begingroup$ You could get someone to update their memory with evidence; is that what you mean by eliminate? Memories aren't really deleted. Here's a core reading on attitudes and persuasion: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001011 $\endgroup$ – Cameron Brick yesterday

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.