CHAPTER 7

The Law of Dissonance

Internal Pressure Is the Secret

There is only one way … to get anybody to do anything. And that is by making the other person want to do it.

—DALE CARNEGIE

My college students once conducted a research study on dissonance. They were looking to find a way to create inner pressure in other students. They did some research and found an interesting study about washing hands. The study found that 97 percent of females and 92 percent of males claim to always wash their hands after taking care of business. But in reality, only 75 percent of females and 58 percent of males actually wash their hands.¹ The students camped out in the university library restroom stalls waiting for someone who did not wash their hands. When they caught a culprit, they would follow him or her into the hallway between the restroom and library and call out in a loud voice, “Hey, wait! You forgot to wash your hands!” This event created what is called dissonance: the discrepancy between what you believe (or say you believe) and what you actually do. Dissonance is a critical persuasion tool.

The results from this experiment were fascinating. Very few people admitted they were wrong, made a mistake, or committed an error in judgment. Most of the students did not acknowledge that they did not wash their hands, but many made interesting comments:

  “No, you’re mistaken. I did wash my hands.”

  “Call security. This pervert was watching me in the bathroom.”

  My professor said that the germs are so strong that it doesn’t matter anymore.”

  “I was just about to use my hand sanitizer.”

  “You’re supposed to wash your hands only before your eat.”

It was rare to hear…

  “OK, I’ll take care of that.”

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological discomfort that happens when someone’s actions or decisions are not congruent with their values, beliefs, or past commitments. The majority of people believed they should wash their hands. When they behaved contrary to their beliefs (i.e., did not wash their hands), they felt dissonance and sought ways to reduce that dissonance and justify why it was OK, rather than admit they were wrong.

Creating dissonance will increase your ability to persuade. When someone senses you are going to try to persuade them, say, to buy something—even though they need it, want it, like it, and can afford it—they will resist you. Dissonance will help people persuade themselves. Help them create their own internal pressure, and they will want to do what you want them to do.

Note: Careful! When you push too hard or back someone into a corner (as in this experiment), the approach could backfire on you.

THE THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Leon Festinger formulated the cognitive dissonance theory at Stanford University. He asserted, “When attitudes or beliefs conflict with our actions, we are uncomfortable and motivated to try to change.” Festinger’s theory sets the foundation for the Law of Dissonance.

The Law of Dissonance states that people will naturally act in a manner that is consistent with their cognitions and commitments. Cognition is a mental process that uses thoughts, beliefs, experiences, and past perceptions. Basically that means when people behave in a manner that is inconsistent with these cognitions (beliefs, thoughts or values), they find themselves in a state of discomfort. In this uncomfortable state, they will be motivated to adjust their behaviors or beliefs to regain mental and emotional balance. When our beliefs, attitudes, and actions mesh, we feel congruent. When they don’t, we feel dissonance at some level—that is, we feel awkward, uncomfortable, upset, or nervous. To eliminate or reduce that tension, we will do everything possible to adjust our beliefs or rationalize our behavior, even if it means doing something we don’t want to do.

Imagine a big rubber band inside of you. When dissonance is created, the rubber band begins to stretch. As long as the dissonance exists, the band stretches tighter and tighter. You’ve got to take action before it reaches a breaking point and snaps. The motivation to reduce the tension is what causes us to change; we will do everything in our power to get back our mental balance. We like to feel a level of consistency in our day-to-day actions and interactions. This harmony is the glue that holds everything together and helps us cope with the world and all the decisions we have to make. Dissonance causes us to distort our memories or remember what we want to see or how we wanted it to happen. This blurs reality and allows us to cover our errors and mistakes.

The human brain needs to be right. It is hard for us to admit we are wrong. We are programmed to justify that what we are doing is right and to avoid taking responsibility when things go wrong. Finding ways to prove ourselves right (even when we are wrong) is easier than admitting why we are wrong. Even when backed into a corner or shown evidence that proves we are wrong, we tend to stick with our reasoning or point of view. We will find reasons, proof, or social support for why what we did was OK. We will start to believe our lies to ourselves. We cannot be at fault, so we persuade ourselves why we were justified. This allows us to live with our thoughts, to manage our day-to-day activities, and to sleep at night. Have you ever proved to someone that he or she was wrong? Have you ever backed them into a corner? What happened? You made the perfect case, but you never heard from the person again.

THE HUMAN BRAIN

The past experiences that our brain recalls are generally much different from reality. Here is an interesting example. When interviewed about what percentage of the housework that couples do every week, the results get interesting. The wives estimated they do 90 percent of the work, and the husbands estimated they do 40 percent of the work.² Hmmm. Obviously those numbers add up to 130 percent. The numbers varied among couples, but they always exceeded 100 percent. The couples were not deliberately lying; this is how their brains recalled their weekly cleaning percentages.

Neuroscientists have made significant progress on how the brain processes information. Our brain can be very biased, especially in politics. People will always see the good in their party and find the bad in the other. During an election, a scientist asked people questions about their candidate and the candidate from the other side while they were administered an MRI. When they were told information about their candidate that caused dissonance, the logical side of their brain would shut down, and they could not recognize their bias.³

Did you know that, based on statistics, when you make a decision, you are right 50 percent of the time and wrong 50 percent of the time? Did you see what happened? I just created dissonance in you. You thought to yourself, “No, that can’t be right. Maybe that’s true for other people, but not me.” Or maybe you thought that statistic is wrong. Either way, I stretched your rubber band, created dissonance, and within seconds you found a way that it could not be true about you.

What does this have to do with influencing other people? Everything. As a persuader, you need to help people feel dissonance about where they are now and where they want or need to go. They will usually resist when you prove them wrong. Just paint the picture for them, and let them feel the internal pressure. They have a problem, and as a persuader you are there to help them solve it. Merely help them realize that the path they are on (where they are) will not take them to where they want to go. This will build dissonance and internal pressure that will be highly influential as they persuade themselves.

METHODS OF PROTECTING MENTAL ALIGNMENT

When we feel dissonance, we have to find a way to deal with the psychological tension. When the rubber band stretches, we cannot live with the internal pressure. We will instantly try to find a way to relieve the tension and reduce our dissonance. We have an arsenal of coping mechanisms at our disposal to help us return to cognitive balance. When you see your prospect exhibit one of these behaviors (except modify), you have stretched the rubber band too far. It has snapped. The internal pressure was too much, and the prospect has gone down an easier or different path to find another solution instead of you. The following list outlines different ways people seek to reduce dissonance.

  Denial: To eliminate the dissonance, you deny there is a problem, by either ignoring or demeaning the source of the information. You could attack (usually verbally) the source, making it their fault. This is somebody else’s fault! You are not to blame.

  Reframing: You change your understanding or interpretation of what really happened. This leads you either to adjust your own thinking or to devalue the importance of the whole issue, considering it unimportant altogether.

  Search: You are determined to find a flaw in the other side’s position, to discredit the source, and to seek social validation or evidence for your own viewpoint. You might attempt to convince the source (if available) of his or her error. You might also try to convince others you did the right thing.

  Separation: You separate the beliefs that are in conflict. This compartmentalizes your cognitions, making it easier for you to ignore or even forget the discrepancy. In your mind, what happens in one area of your life (or someone else’s) should not affect the other areas of your life. “Everyone else should obey the rules or conform, but the rules do not apply to me.”

  Rationalization: You find excuses to explain why the inconsistency is acceptable. You change your expectations or try to rationalize what happened. You also find reasons to justify your behavior or your beliefs. You could say this is not a big deal because everyone is doing it.

  Modify: You change your existing beliefs to achieve mental alignment. Most of the time, this involves admitting you were wrong or off course and will make changes or adjustments to get back into alignment.

One real-life example–New Year’s resolutions—is familiar to all of us. You told your friend about your resolution to lose weight through diet and exercise. This will be your year, and you enlist your friend to help. Your friend commits to help you and you are off and running. Fast-forward one month and your friend has caught you polishing off a large container of ice cream. She calls you on your commitment, and your rubber band stretches. You feel dissonance. How to do you handle the tension?

  Denial: “You’re fatter than I am. Why ride me? Remember the time you….”

  Reframing: “What I really meant was I will start my diet after I finish this big project.”

  Search: “I researched exercise on the Internet and found that exercise actually hurts your knees and your health.”

  Separation: “I meant to diet during summer for the beach. It’s winter now, so I have time before I have to start.”

  Rationalization: “I had a salad for lunch and a meal replacement drink for breakfast, so I’m way below my caloric intake for today.”

  Modify: “You’re right. I am going to start right now. Thanks for saying something.”

Consider how each of these reactions could apply if the following experience actually happened in your own life: Your favorite politician, the local mayor, for whom you campaigned and voted, is in trouble. You spent your own time and money convincing family, friends, and neighbors to vote for this candidate. You thought he was a man of values, somebody who could be trusted. Now, after two years in office, he’s been caught taking a bribe from a local company. The news creates dissonance inside you. To alleviate the dissonance, you might react in any one or combination of the following ways:

  Denial: “This is just the media going after him. He’s doing a great job, so the opposing party is trying to smear his good name. This will all blow over when the facts come out. It’s all just a big misunderstanding.”

  Reframing: “The media said ‘bribe.’ Well, I’m sure he didn’t actually spend the money. Maybe it was just a loan. I’m sure his staff knew all about the whole thing. Even if he did take the bribe, who doesn’t? Is it that big a deal?”

Search: “I’ve heard about the reporter breaking this story. He’s blown things out of proportion before. All the friends I’ve talked to don’t think the story is true. In fact, this reporter has been against the mayor from the time he became a candidate. I’m going to call that reporter right now.”

  Separation: “I voted for him, and he’s doing a great job. Inflation is low, unemployment is getting better, and crime has been reduced. He is doing everything he said he would. It doesn’t matter what he does on the side. What matters is how he’s doing his job. There’s no connection between the bribe and his job performance.”

  Rationalization: “Well, his salary is really low for all the work he does. He should be paid more for all grief he has to deal with. It’s OK for him to make deals on the side. This is one of the perks of this office. Everyone probably does it. I would probably do the same thing.”

  Modification: “I can’t believe I voted for this guy. I feel swindled and taken advantage of. I really mistook him for a man of character. I need to apologize to my family and friends. I cannot support a man who does not have any ethics.”

Buyer’s remorse is a form of dissonance. When we purchase a product or service, we tend to look for ways to convince ourselves that we made the right decision. If the people around us or other factors make us question our decision, we experience buyer’s remorse. On feeling this inconsistency, we’ll look for anything—facts, peer validation, expert opinion—to reduce the dissonance in our minds concerning the purchase. Some of us even use selective exposure to minimize the risk of seeing or hearing something that could cause dissonance. Often people won’t even tell family or friends about their purchase or decision because they know it will create dissonance.

MAINTAINING PSYCHOLOGICAL ALIGNMENT

A study by Knox and Inkster found interesting results at a racetrack. They interviewed people waiting in line to place a bet and then questioned them again after they’d placed their bets. They found that people were much more confident with their decisions after placing their bets than before.⁴ Once we make out decision, the horse sounds better, the product looks better, and our decision seems more correct. Not only does everything look better, but the alternatives look worse and indicate that we made the right decision.

Younger, Walker, and Arrowood decided to conduct a similar experiment. They interviewed people who had already placed bets on a variety of different games (bingo, wheel of fortune, etc.), as well as people who were still on their way to place bets. They asked the people whether they felt confident they were going to win. Paralleling the findings of Knox and Inkster’s study, the people who had already made their bets felt luckier and more confident (before the results) than those who had not yet placed their wagers.⁵

These studies show that, to reduce dissonance, we often simply convince ourselves that we have made the right decision. Imagine the psychological toll if we have to continually revisit decisions, especially if they were perceived to be wrong. Once we place a bet or purchase a product or service, we feel more confident with ourselves and the choice we have made.

This concept holds true in persuasion and sales. Once prospects pay for your product or service, they will usually feel more confident with their decisions. Have them make the payment or finalize the choice as soon as possible! This will increase their confidence in their decision, and they will look for reasons to justify that decision. The key is to understand that people are so skeptical these days that they are looking for every reason not to do business with you. Once they find a few reasons or benefits that will help them solve their challenge, it is time to seal the deal. Once the deal is done, they will start finding reasons why it was a great deal. You can always fill in the blanks later.

USING DISSONANCE TO CREATE ACTION

Dissonance is a powerful tool in helping others make and keep commitments. In one study, researchers staged thefts to test the reactions of onlookers. At Jones Beach near New York City, the researchers randomly selected an accomplice to place his beach towel and portable radio 5 feet away from them. The ages of the people ranged from 14 to 60 and included both genders. After relaxing there for a while, the accomplice got up and left. After the accomplice had departed, one of the researchers, pretending to be a thief, stole the radio. Hardly anyone reacted to the staged theft. Very few people were willing to put themselves at risk by confronting the thief. In fact, only 20 percent of the nearby people made any attempt to hinder the thief.

The researchers staged the same theft again, only this time with one slight difference in the scenario. The minor alteration brought drastically different results. This time, before leaving, the accomplice asked each person lying nearby, “Excuse me, I’m going up to the boardwalk for a few minutes. Would you watch my things?” Each person consented. This time, with the Law of Dissonance at work, 95 percent of the individuals sought to stop the thief by chasing them, grabbing back the radio, and in some cases, even physically restraining him.

They did another study in the city of New York. They went to a busy restaurant and had a well dressed young woman take a seat. She would exit the restaurant and leave her briefcase. A few minutes later, the thief walked over and took the briefcase, and very few tried to stop him. In the second part of the study, the accomplice would say, “Excuse me. May I leave this here for a few minutes?” All subjects agreed to watch the briefcase. That commitment again dramatically increased the number of people who stepped in to stop the thief.⁶

Most people try to follow through when they promise to do something, especially if it is in writing. This is why corporations sponsor writing contests about social issues or their products. They really don’t care about your writing style. They’re really looking for consumer endorsement. The writer puts down, in her own words, what she thinks the company wants to hear about its issue or product. Having made a written commitment to supporting and endorsing a product or issue, the consumer will now support the sponsoring company in their cause or will voluntarily buy their product. You increase persuasion by using commitments throughout your presentation.

GETTING YOUR FOOT IN THE DOOR (FITD)

One aspect of the Law of Dissonance is the urge to remain consistent with our answers and our commitments. Even if someone begins with a small request, and then follows it up with a larger request, we still tend to remain consistent in our behavior and answers. This technique of capitalizing on such a principle has been called by several names, including foot-in-the-door (FITD), self-perception theory, or the sequential request. The principle is a means of using a person’s self-perception to motivate her to take a desired action. When an individual complies a first time, she perceives herself to be helpful. If she is asked to comply a second time in an even greater way, she is likely to consent. In an effort to maintain consistency with the first impression and with her own self-perception, she agrees to give even more of herself.

The key to using FITD is to get the person to agree to a small initial request. For example, ask someone, “Can I have just thirty seconds of your time?” Most individuals would respond affirmatively. According to self-perception theory, the person would observe his own behavior and, in regard to this interaction, consider himself a helpful person. The second step in the FITD principle is making another, more involved request. “Can I try this on the stain on your carpet?” The person feels he should consent to the second request because he is “that kind of person.” He has already seen himself do other behaviors in support of the product or service, so he willingly complies with the second request.

Another study involved testing to see whether introductory psychology students would rise early to take part in a 7:00 a.m. study session on thinking processes. In one group, the students were told that the session would begin promptly at 7:00 a.m. Of these students, only 24 percent agreed to participate. In the second group, the students were first told what the study was and asked to participate. The 7:00 a.m. time was not mentioned until after they had consented to take part. Fifty-six percent of them did. When the opportunity to change their minds was presented to them, however, none of them took advantage of it. Ninety-five percent of students actually followed through and showed up for the 7:00 a.m. session.⁷

In another study, the researchers wanted to test FITD in door-to-door donations. In the first part of the study, participants were asked to sign a petition two weeks before being asked to make a donation. In the second half of the study, participants were asked for the donation the first time. When they were asked to sign the petition before being asked for a donation, it resulted in more money donated than those who were asked for a donation first.

This FITD technique also worked well for smokers. They were asked to abstain from smoking for 18 hours. They were told to write down all the reasons they accepted the challenge. Then they were asked to stop smoking for six days. The group who wrote down their reasons and rationalized why they accepted the 18-hour challenge accepted the 6-day challenge 82 percent of the time. The other group who did not write down their reasons complied only 26 percent of the time.

If you can get someone to mentally commit to a product or a decision, he is likely to remain committed even after the terms and conditions change. This is why, when stores advertise very low prices on, say, computers, they include in small print, “Quantities Limited.” By the time you get to the store, all the bargain computers are sold, but you are mentally committed to buying a new computer. Luckily for you, more expensive models are available. So you go home having spent $500 more on a computer than you originally planned, just because you needed to maintain a consistency between your desire for a new computer and your action of being in the store.

Using FITD Effectively

Here are three key principles in learning how to use this technique:

1. Small commitments lead to large commitments. For example, salespeople often focus first on securing an initial order, even if it’s a small one. Once this is accomplished, the customer will be more likely to commit to buying from them again.

2. Written commitments are more powerful than verbal commitments. We know the power of the written word. When contracts are signed and promises are put into writing, the commitment level increases tenfold.

3. Public commitments are stronger than private commitments. Taking a public stand that is witnessed by others compels us to continually endorse that commitment. Otherwise, we risk being seen as inconsistent or dishonest. For example, many weight loss centers have their clients write down and share their goals with as many people as possible, thereby increasing the likelihood of success.

When utilizing this technique, you must first determine exactly what end result you are seeking. This will be the big commitment you ask for. You should then create several small and simple requests that are related to your ultimate request, making sure they can be easily satisfied.

Remember that the first request needs to be “of sufficient size for the foot-in-the-door technique to work,”⁸ but, on the other hand, it cannot be so big that it seems inappropriate and/or is not easily and readily accomplished. Present a request that can be easily accepted, and you get a yes.

FOUR STEPS TO USING THE LAW OF DISSONANCE

Step 1: Find Their Cognition

What are your prospects’ beliefs about, past experiences with, and attitude or feelings about you, your product, or service? You have to find out their wants and needs before you can create dissonance. How can you gently stretch the rubber band? What is the difference between where they are now and where they want to be?

Step 2: Get a Commitment

Commitments from your prospects should be public, affirmative, and voluntary.

Public

Make your prospect’s decision as public as possible. Get a written commitment, and make that written commitment public. Involve family and friends in the proposed action. Engage your customer in a public handshake to seal the deal in front of other employees and customers.

Affirmative

You want to get as many yes answers as possible because yeses develop consistency within the person that will carry over into your major request. This technique makes it easier for prospects to say yes to your final proposal. Even if it is a watered-down, easy request, getting a yes to any request makes it easier to evoke the same response down the road.

Use a series of questions that all meet with yes. Desire increases with each yes, and decreases with each no. Every time we say yes to a benefit, our desire goes up.

Voluntary

When getting commitments, start small and build up to larger commitments. You cannot force commitments. Long-term approval has to feel as though it comes from your prospects’ own will, something they want to do or say. They have to volunteer to test-drive the car, write on the contract, or request more information. Making their own commitment makes the action more voluntary and solidifies the commitment.

Step 3: Create Dissonance

Once you have the commitment, you can create the dissonance. You create that dissonance or imbalance by showing your prospects that they have not kept or are not keeping their commitment. For example, “If we don’t act now, the homeless children will go to bed hungry.” The person’s self-image is squeezed from both sides by consistency pressures. The prospect feels great internal pressure to bring her self-image in line with her actions. At the same time, there is pressure to reduce dissonance.

Step 4: Offer a Solution

As a Power Persuader, whenever you create dissonance, you always need to offer a way out. You need to show, prove, or explain how your product or service can reduce the dissonance your prospect feels. For example, “If something happens to you, will your family be able to survive financially?”

Keep your ultimate request in mind. Prepare your whole persuasive presentation around the moment when you will make that major request. Once your prospects accept the solution, they have convinced themselves that they have made the right and only choice. As a result, they feel great about their decision. This makes the dissonance disappear. The decision was their personal choice. They know exactly what to do.

The solution is your call to action.

FINAL NOTE

As diverse human beings, we have to understand that we will all feel different levels of dissonance for the same experience. Some people need so much consistency and predictability in their lives that they will tend to feel a much higher level of dissonance than others. Also, introverts tend to feel more dissonance than extroverts.

Dissonance will backfire when you stretch the rubber band too far and it snaps. This happens when your prospect does not believe you, your claim is considered ridiculous, or you don’t provide a solution. During persuasion, never back someone into a corner.

CASE STUDY

---

In a persuasive presentation training session with financial planners, I found that the planners knew how to give interesting facts and use convincing statistics. Their training goal was to become more persuasive and to generate additional business after their presentations. These planners were able to build the value of their product and prove that planning was a great investment, but they were not happy with the number of new clients. Most of these potential clients thought they had plenty of time and tended to wait to invest. What do you think was the primary reason (using the Law of Dissonance) that these prospects used to resist becoming new clients?

These financial planners stretched the rubber band but did not address the denial factor of dissonance. It is human nature to deny the existence of a problem and to put off their decisions. If people feel they can do something later, then the rubber band is no longer stretched, and they will delay their decision. We all know that usually means no.

To overcome their prospects’ denial, I had the financial planners add a time element to their presentation. Their prospects saw a visual chart indicating that, if they waited or procrastinated, they would lose money. This addressed the denial factor of dissonance, and client acquisition dramatically increased. They were shown how much money they already lost and would lose by waiting to invest. The key is to prevent them from creating a reason why the negative effect of delay does not apply to them.

---

Additional Resources: Dissonance Application Video (maximuminfluence.com)