Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T02:49:57.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Analysis of Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Merton S. Krause
Merton S. Krause*
Affiliation:
Institute for Juvenile Research
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An axiomatization of the theory is presented based on an explication of the 1957 text. Twenty-five theorems are deduced from the seven postulates. An abstract test space for the theory is formulated and the operations for its practical testing discussed. Traditional experimentation with the theory seems generally concerned with few of its propositions and incapable of testing it.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 32 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Blanché, R. Axiomatics. New York: Free Press, 1962.Google Scholar
[2] Chapanis, Natalia P., and Chapanis, A. “Cognitive dissonance: five years later.” Psychological Bulletin 61 (1964): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[3] Church, A. Logic, formal. The dictionary of philosophy. Edited by Runes, D. D. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
[4] Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York: Row, Peterson, 1957.Google Scholar
[5] Keynes, J. M. A treatise on probability. London: Macmillan, 1952.Google Scholar
[6] Krause, M. S. “Disconfirmative results and prior commitments.” Philosophy of Science 31 (1964): 237–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Krause, M. S. “Twelve propositions in the semantics of motivation.” Journal of General Psychology 70 (1964): 331–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[8] Krause, M. S. “Alternative explanations of confirmative results.” Psychological Record 15 (1965): 423–424.10.1007/BF03393609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Krause, M. S. “Role deviant respondent set and resulting bias, their detection and control in the survey interview.” Journal of Social Psychology 67 (1965): 163–183.10.1080/00224545.1965.9922266CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[10] Krause, M. S. “The logic of theory testing with construct validated measures.” Journal of General Psychology 77 (1967): 101–109.10.1080/00221309.1967.9710760CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[11] Krause, M. S. “The construct validity of measuring instruments.” Journal of General Psychology 77 (1967): 277–284.10.1080/00221309.1967.9710410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[12] Krause, M. S. “Proving causal propositions: the foundations of program and experiment design.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 2 (1967): 349–376.10.1207/s15327906mbr0203_5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[13] Krause, M. S. “Corroborative results and subsequent research commitments.” Journal of General Psychology 84 (1971): 219–227.10.1080/00221309.1971.9711308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[14] Krause, M. S. “The valid assessment of others' beliefs.” Journal of General Psychology 81 (1969): 95–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[15] Kyburg, H. E. Jr., and Smokier, H. E. Studies in subjective probability. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
[16] Lazarus, R. S. Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
[17] MacCorquodale, K., and Meehl, P. E. “On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables.” Psychological Review 55 (1948): 95–107.10.1037/h0056029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[18] Toulmin, S. The uses of argument. London: Cambridge University Press, 1964.Google Scholar
[19] Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1954.Google Scholar