Cited by 98Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Neural mechanisms of dissonance: An fMRI investigation of choice justification

Kitayama, Shinobu, Chua, Hannah Faye, Tompson, Steven, Han, Shihui·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

Cognitive dissonance theory proposes that difficult choice produces negatively arousing cognitive conflict (called dissonance), which motivates the chooser to justify her decision by increasing her preference for the chosen option while decreasing her preference for the rejected option. At present, however, neural mechanisms of dissonance are poorly understood. To address this gap of knowledge, we scanned 24 young Americans as they made 60 choices between pairs of popular music CDs. As predicted, choices between CDs that were close (vs. distant) in attractiveness (referred to as difficult vs. easy choices) resulted in activations of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), a brain region associated with cognitive conflict, and the left anterior insula (left aINS), a region often linked with aversive emotional arousal. Importantly, a separate analysis showed that choice-justifying attitude change was predicted by the in-choice signal intensity of the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), a region that is linked to self-processing. The three regions identified (dACC, left aINS, and PCC) were correlated, within-subjects, across choices. The results were interpreted to support the hypothesis that cognitive dissonance plays a key role in producing attitudes that justify the choice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.034

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are empirical reasons to suppose that a negative affective state results from the conflict between two representations.

    “In short, we have empirical reasons to suppose that a negative affective state results from the conflict between two representations (Elliot & Devine, 1994, Kitayama, Chua, Tompson, & Han, 2013)”

    From Conative Dissonance (2026) · cites this paper as Kitayama, Chua, Tompson, & Han, 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kitayama, S., Chua, H. F., Tompson, S., & Han, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
Corresponding author
Kitayama, Shinobu
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
69
Pages
206-212
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005045124
Cited by
98
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
cognitive dissonance, attitude change, cognitive conflict, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, posterior cingulate cortex, self-processing, music selection, decision difficulty
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Brain, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review