Critically analyzing information to come up with a choice
Introduction
It is human nature to believe that the information they possess to be accurate and anything else to be lies or fake news. However, when different information that seems to be factual is received, there is a conflict on what should be regarded as truth or what should not be believed. The cognitive dissonance theory is among the many social approaches that have spun decades of research. Still, even with the recent technological advancements, especially in internet use and social media activity, more research is needed to highlight the challenges people face when filtering information and arguing what information is accurate to post on social media. When faced with cognitive dissonance, many individuals will try and reduce the contributing factor that brings the dissonance. At the same time, some will inherently persuade themselves that what they know is the truth and desist from other sources. Arguably, the cognitive dissonance theory, the benefits include embracing new knowledge that leads to the powerful filtering of information and imparting new ideas and rationales. Demerits of the approach include creating a sense of indecisiveness as the individuals faced with dissonance can make the vital decision that influences what they post on social media. The cognitive dissonance theory is essential. It portrays the everyday challenges people go through before and after posting on social media based on their previous knowledge while trying to integrate new information.
Pros
Cognitive dissonance is significant when making decisions on what to post on social media. When individuals are blasted with new information, they can now weigh out their posts and even make more informed choices. In a situation where a person has no knowledge that is different from what they already know, they will be of limited decisions compared to an individual who has extra information on various matters. Despite being in a dilemma with additional information, it places a person who is about to choose an item in a better spot than those who have limited information that is not differing. A good example is when a person is about to purchase an item online, with the integration of technology in such platforms, there is the need to read reviews of products. Reviews will guide a buyer as to whether they should buy a product or not. As supported by Liang, “negative reviews … dissuade other consumers from a decision by providing an overall unfavorable rating and corresponding written information that discourages the purchase” (464). Therefore, it is evident that new information on a product will significantly affect whether it should be purchased. However, when a person only knows the good of one given product, they will not have the advantage of wanting to view other products or even better considering to buy them. A person who has read different product reviews will be at an advantage as they will consider different products before purchasing. Thus they will be able to buy better items than those who did not read the reviews. Likewise, when posting on social media, those with more knowledge will more likely post more informed posts than those who do not have such information.
Having various information has the advantage of making people more open-minded on opinions about other concepts, faiths, political affiliations, or even choices. Those who only know a given piece of information and embrace it as the only available truth or fact will have difficulty appreciating various concepts and beliefs that others may have. On the other hand, it will be easier for those who have different information from what they accept as the truth. The internet and social media have been a critical driver of cognitive dissonance; this is because people from other parts of the world can interact and appreciate the differences between them. Jeong et al. assert that “the opinion heterogeneity leads social media users to having more tolerant political stances, in terms of being more inclusive towards different opinions” (231). For this matter, globally, those individuals who know about different faiths, cultures, sexuality, races, or even physical disabilities will have a smooth time interacting and socializing with others who have differing opinions. Such will be transferred to what they post online as information that caters to different categories of people. Having this knowledge lets an individual appreciate other people for who they are and drops the different person narrative while enabling them to be comfortable while posting on social media filled with various categories of people. Without extra information from what they believe or have accepted, others will have difficulty synthesizing the extent of varying opinions or beliefs that other people have. Cognitive dissonance, therefore, gives individuals with extra information advantage over those who lack this type of information.
Cognitive dissonance leads to communal responsibility and belief in different people, which increases harmony in communities on social media. Not only does the dissonance of other people’s culture make an individual appreciate them, but it also makes them be understood for the goal of better co-existence. As explained by Jeong et al., “users can develop a better understanding of others, and eventually, establish a mutual trust that is built on the basis of such sympathy” (231). Therefore, it is a dominant explanation for the harmony the world is right now compared to ages ago when people never knew others’ existence. Those with little or no extra knowledge of other people will have a more challenging time interacting and existing socially with different people. Knowing other people is different from what was previously known as a significant motivator having trust in different people because now there is trust resulting from that knowledge. When cultures prevent people from mixing with those that are different, an invisible wall can only be brought down through different experiences that may lead to cognitive dissonance and promote the much-needed trust and harmony needed from the world.
Among the effects of the cognitive dissonance theory is the change of behavior. Many people have transformed from toxic behaviors because they were fed with information contrary to what they were doing previously. If this information explains that their behavior is not best for their health or those around them, they will change for the better. Mills and Harmon-Jones explain how people are “motivated to reduce the tension by implementing some change that would restore consonance among the inconsistent elements.” (297). A person who has the habit of posting hate speech messages on social media but gets the information that hateful messages may lead him to be arrested and put on trial will most likely stop posting hateful messages to prevent himself from being prosecuted. However, those who have not gotten any idea of such information will continue their toxic behaviors without changing. The dilemma that comes with new information is vital in ensuring that people change their behavior concerning the type of information that comes their way.
Cons
Cognitive dissonance brings discomfort. An individual who has different information about a subject will more likely be troubled or undecided on what to choose. Again, the same effect will bring about a tendency to feel indebted to either side. Before finding the correct option, a person will feel troubled and be better positioned than those who had specific information. “When individuals hold two or more cognitions that are contradictory, they will feel an unpleasant state” (Hinojosa et al. 171). People who did not have various information about a product will most likely be in a very comfortable situation and make decisions faster and more confidently in the case of social media postings, those with differing opinions from what they believe will have a dilemma on what they should post or what they should keep to themselves. If individuals wish to post on a specific subject but have knowledge on a different variety, they will take more time trying to pick the best subject for their posting. However, for those who are posting for a specific subject with no knowledge on different subject matters or topics, they will have an easier time selecting their preferred topic. Additionally, stress is a product of cognitive dissonance. Individuals who face the challenge of deciding between two topics to post on social media will be stressed compared to those who have no issue choosing between two or more things. In the current world, where the internet is part of our everyday lives, information has become rampant. Thus, it is very likely for any decision that one has to make complicated because of the availability of relevant information in the same field. However, the burden of choosing between two equally good options is made easier if the second option never existed.
Cognitive dissonance can encourage toxic behavior. Individuals who have been engaging in behavior that is harmful to them or close to them may come across information that depicts such practices’ impact. However, instead of stopping the toxic behavior, such people will ultimately create a cocoon of reasons why their behavior is permissible and why they should not change. A person that goes on social media to bully others may come across information that prioritizes the need to abstain from online bullying. Nonetheless, instead of quitting online bullying, the same person might create an allusion that the practice is better than doing drugs and, therefore, continuing with their behavior or, worse, even increasing the severity of their current online bullying. The thought of encouraging the behavior will result from trying to avert the stress that comes with cognitive dissonance, but the wrong choice will have been selected in this case.
Self-integrity is belittled by cognitive dissonance. There is always that information which everyone believes they know best. When prompted to give an analysis of different concepts, some people are sure that they know best. However, when they encounter outside knowledge, they understand that others know better than them, such causes these people to feel that the information they thought they knew best has even much better experts than them. Cooper explains that “people are motivated to influence others … in order to satisfy their drive.” (1). If they find other social media people with more knowledge than they already know, they will kill their drive. Such leads to a decrease in self-esteem or even the confidence to speak on some issues. In social media, such people will reduce the instances of which they post on their preferred topics. If these people never got exposed to such knowledge, they would still be confident about their self-integrity and even professionalism in a given matter. It is also the nature of humans to enjoy the fact that they are the best in given fields; they are left to feel powerless in others’ faces without that.
Conclusion
The process of critically analyzing information to come up with a choice is challenging to many people, especially when new information is involved. In the case of social media, cognitive dissonance is both helpful and destructive in many ways. Leading to change in toxic behavior and better decision-making has helped many people make rational decisions. Especially in the current digital-influenced world, it has become even easier to find information that greatly influences most decisions people make every day, mostly posting online. On the other hand, challenges face individuals going through cognitive dissonances such as poor decision-making, stress, and an overall belittlement of self-esteem to many when they realize that their integrity can be challenged. Nonetheless, it is a significant social theory that, with more research, can be able to have even more significance to the human race and their online activities in general.