Early research on attitudes assumed that they were casually related to behavior; that is, the attitudes people hold determine what they do. Common sense, too, suggests a relationship. Isn’t it logical that people watch television programs they like, or that employees try to avoid assignments they find distasteful?
However, in the late 1960s, this assumed effect of attitudes on behavior was challenged by a review of the research. One researcher—Leon Festinger—argued that attitudes follow behavior. Did you ever notice how people change what they say, so it doesn’t contradict what they do? Perhaps a friend of yours has consistently argued that the quality of US cars isn’t up to that of imports and that he’d never own anything but a Japanese or German car. But his dad gives him a late-model Ford Mustang, and suddenly US cars aren't so bad. Festinger argued that these cases of attitude following behavior illustrate the effects of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance refers to any incompatibility an individual might perceive between two or more attitudes or between behavior and attitudes. Festinger argued that any form of inconsistency is uncomfortable and that individuals will attempt to reduce the dissonance and, hence, the discomfort. They will seek a stable state, in which there is a minimum of dissonance.
Research has generally concluded that people seek consistency among their attitudes and between their attitudes and their behavior. They do this by altering either the attitudes or the behavior or by developing a rationalization for the discrepancy. Tobacco executives provide an example. How you might wonder do these people cope with the ongoing barrage of data linking cigarette smoking and negative health outcomes? They can deny that any clear causation between smoking and cancer, for instance, has been established. They can brainwash themselves by continually articulating the benefits of tobacco. They can acknowledge the negative consequences of smoking, but rationalize that people are going to smoke and that tobacco companies merely promote freedom of choice. They can accept the research evidence and begin actively working to make less dangerous cigarettes or at least reduce their availability to more vulnerable groups, such as teenagers. Or they can quit their job because the dissonance is too great.
No individual, of course, can completely avoid dissonance. You know that cheating on your income tax is wrong, but you “fudge” the numbers a bit every year and hope you’re not audited. Or you tell your children to floss their teeth every day, but you don’t. So how do people cope? Festinger would propose that the desire to reduce dissonance depends on the importance of the elements creating it and the degree of influence the individual believes he has over the elements; individuals will be more motivated to reduce dissonance when the attitudes or behavior are important or when they believe that the dissonance is due to something they can control. A third factor is the rewards of dissonance; high rewards accompanying high dissonance tend to reduce the tension inherent in the dissonance because they allow us to easily rationalize it.
1.The purpose of mentioning the TV programs people watch in the first paragraph is to show （ ）.
2.Which of the following cases can illustrate “dissonance”？
3.People seek consistency among their attitudes and between their attitudes and their behavior by doing many things EXCEPT by （ ）.
4.The author wants to tell us （ ）by giving the example of tobacco executives.
5.Which of the following statements is TRUE according to the last paragraph?
