Cited by 342Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionPsychology of Social Influence

Back to the Future of Dissonance Theory: Cognitive Consistency as a Core Motive

Gawronski, Bertram·2012·Social Cognition

Abstract

In his theory of cognitive dissonance, Festinger (1957) described cognitive consistency as a psychological need that is as basic as hunger and thirst. Over the past decades, however, the idea of cognitive consistency as a core motive has been replaced by an increasingly narrow focus on dissonance-related changes in attitudes and alternative accounts that attribute such changes to mechanisms of ego-defense. The current article aims at reviving the idea of cognitive consistency as a core motive, arguing that inconsistency serves as an epistemic cue for errors in one's system of beliefs. Because inconsistency can often be resolved in multiple ways, motivated reasoning can bias processes of inconsistency resolution toward desired conclusions, although motivated distortions are constrained by the need for cognitive consistency. The ubiquity of consistency processes is illustrated through its role in various instances of threat-compensation (e.g., victim derogation, self-verification, system justification) and the insights that can be gained from reconceptualizing various social psychological phenomena in terms of cognitive consistency (e.g., prejudice-related belief systems, dispositional inference, stability of first impressions).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.652

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • Action-based and epistemic theories of dissonance explain some cases of cognitive dissonance but cannot provide an overarching explanation of all examples and aspects.

    “Both of these accounts can provide a convincing explanation of some cases of cognitive dissonance. But neither of them is in a position to provide an overarching explanation of all examples and all aspects of cognitive dissonance.”

    From Conative Dissonance (2026) · cites this paper as Gawronski, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gawronski, B.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Gawronski, Bertram
Venue
Social Cognition
Published
2012-12
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
652-668
ISSN
0278-016X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2021142797
Cited by
342
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
FWCI
54.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social Cognition (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
cognitive dissonance, cognitive consistency, inconsistency resolution, motivated reasoning, victim derogation, self-verification, system justification, prejudice, dispositional inference, first impressions, belief systems, defense mechanisms

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