The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance
Abstract
Published in 1976, Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance is a valuable contribution to the field of Social Psychology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.
Higgins, E. T. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319 · Cited by 7,219
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self
Steele, C. M. (1988) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60229-4 · Cited by 3,697
Metadata
- Authors
- Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W.
- Venue
- Psychology Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Psychology Press
- Published
- 2013-04-15
- OpenAlex
- W1941386639
- Cited by
- 645
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.75
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4324/9780203767672
- The paper
- Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (2013). Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance. Psychology Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203767672
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
