Cognitive Dissonance - October 2011 Issue

http://hopkins.typepad.com/mandy/2009/11/the-critical-juncture.html

The concept behind true justice is a difficult theory to comprehend. Some view it as an absolute abiding of the law whereas others choose the route of essential, (or so they claim) natural or innate rights. However, this proposes the question, what would YOU do in the sudden face of a test if your morals? Although a person may state the obvious, that they would hold true to their values and in instance of the question, they would rise to the occasion according to their beliefs. On the contrary, often is the case of support for the cognitive dissonance theory. This ideology theorizes that a person or persons’ actions are not held in accordance with their beliefs. That is, when placed under a pressure of some sort, a person acts contrary to how they believe.

Allow me to suggest an example. Cited from Harvard professor of philosophy Michael Sandel, this scenario brings out the question of WHERE our principles went and WHAT happened to them. Imagine you are the conductor of a train that is careening out of control. You notice that the breaks are dysfunctional, much to your despair. Yet what frightens you further is that at the end of the track, you notice five workers, blissfully unaware of the approaching train. You know that the speeding train, if it hits them, will surely kill all five of them, at which point you begin to feel hopeless after your futile efforts to warn the men of their impending doom. As you start to anticipate the inevitable, you notice, a little further ahead, that there is a junction in the track, leading to a side track. At the end of that track, you notice a sole worker, one who is also unaware of your train.

You tinker around and notice that your steering wheel works. At this point, the question is posed. What would you do? Would you turn the train onto the junction and kill the one man, sparing the five? Or would you take the former alternative, and run straight on the track, killing the five, but sparing the one?

Most people would immediately answer that they would turn the train and run into the one man, killing him, thus avoiding the death of five other workers. To further this thought process, think to yourself: WHY did you decide to turn and sacrifice one man for the five? Or if you were in the minority and decided to drive straight into the five, killing them, and sparing the one: why did you decide to take this alternative? Deliberate for a while on this scenario, preferably with a partner to converse over different views on the topic.

Now, let’s look at another example. Suppose you are on a bridge overlooking a train track. You notice that there is a train that is speeding towards five workers on a track. You feel helpless, especially because now you are watching this series of events take place. You know that if the train reaches them, the workers will without a doubt die. However, in this case, you notice that beside you, also on the bridge, is a man. You also come to realize that if you were to give the man a slight “nudge” that would send him over the bridge and onto the track, you could stop the train. Stopping the train would spare the five, but consequently, kill the man you pushed over the edge.

The question that is derived from this scenario is simply put: would you push the man over, or would you let the train carry on in its predetermined path? At this point, most people would take a similar stance as most? Harvard students took for this scenario. They would not push the single man over to spare the five. This proposes the question: What happened to the principle behind killing one to spare five? Where did it go? For those in the majority who would not push the man over the bridge, think to yourself your justifications. For those in the minority who would push him over, justify your belief. Also, try to see if your view altered from the previous example.

Now some may argue that in the real world, they would never be forced to take part in a situation like this. Now I’m not attempting to say that at some point in a person’s life, they will be forced to decide the fate of another. However, I do stand firm to my belief that, going back to the concept of cognitive dissonance, that people often act contrary to their values or beliefs. This is seen every day, in all aspects of a person’s daily routine. You see vegetarians succumbing to social pressures, and eating meat, you see people smoking or drinking alcoholic beverages that they had once said they would never partake in, you see people indulge in such fantasies or luxuries that they would otherwise have spurned.

It’s easy to forget the indirect impact that society and social pressure has on us. Each person attempts to fit into their own niche, however diverse it may be. People stereotype simply for self assurance. People discriminate or question when a man or woman or child acts inconsistent with our schemas of them. Social identity and out-group homogeneity dominate our lives and our actions, of which we are completely unaware of. To end this discussion, I’d like to propose a challenge to the readers. Within a typical day, attempt to calculate exactly how many times you find yourself being influenced or coerced into behaving in such a way you could never have seen yourself as acting. Who knows, you might surprise yourself!