Cognitive Dissonance Theory
or Righteous Rage is Real
According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior. Dissonance (being psychologically uncomfortable) occurs most often in situations where an individual must choose between two incompatible beliefs or actions.
Example: Consider someone who buys an expensive car but discovers that it is not comfortable on long drives. Dissonance exists between their beliefs that they have bought a good car and that a good car should be comfortable. Dissonance could be eliminated by deciding that it does not matter since the car is mainly used for short trips (reducing the importance of the dissonant belief) or focusing on the cars strengths such as safety, appearance, handling (thereby adding more consonant beliefs). The dissonance could also be eliminated by getting rid of the car, but this behavior is a lot harder to achieve than changing beliefs.
Principles:
1. Dissonance results when an individual must choose between attitudes and behaviors that are contradictory.
2. Dissonance can be eliminated by reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, acquiring new beliefs that change the balance, or removing the conflicting attitude or behavior.
Conflicting cognitions: cognitive dissonance
Once two cognitions are held and there is a conflict of interests between them, the individual falls into a state of cognitive dissonance. This may be demonstrated by an individual purchasing a brand of washing machine, initially believing that it was the best product to buy. This person's cognition is that a good washing machine has been bought. However, after the purchase, the individual may be exposed to another cognition that informs him/her that there is a better washing machine out on the market (for example, through an advertisement). This then leads to an imbalance between his/her cognitions and a psychological state which needs to seek consonance between the two cognitions.
A person in a state of cognitive dissonance will then seek consonance. There are various ways to achieve this. However, changing a cognition gives some discomfort: one has to reflect and admit to oneself that one has had a wrong cognition.
Therefore, rather than adapt to these cognitions, one may deride the new improved washing machine, and perceive the new advertisement as untrue. This is another way of allowing one's cognitions to be in a consonant state once more.
However, there are even more ways of reducing the state of dissonance. One example is through selecting information after the purchase. It might be that a person would purposely avoid other washing machine advertisements knowing that the decision had been made and finding out about other products could lead to some discomfort.

How cognitive dissonance in relation to religion works:
The Great Disappointment was an event in the early history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, when Jesus failed to re-appear on the appointed day of October 22, 1844 as members of the Church expected.
Between 1831 and 1844, William Miller, a Baptist preacher, launched what he called the "great second advent awakening", also known as the Millerite Movement. Miller preached a set of fourteen rules for the interpretation of the Bible, which spread to followers throughout the world. Based on his study of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, Miller calculated that Jesus would return to Earth sometime between 1843 and 1844. Others within the movement calculated a specific date of October 22, 1844.
When Jesus did not appear, Miller's followers experienced what became to be called "the Great Disappointment". Most of the thousands of followers left the movement. A few, however, went back to their Bibles to find why they had been disappointed. They concluded that the prophecy predicted not that Jesus would return to earth in 1844, but that a special ministry in heaven would be formed on that date. From this started the modern Seventh-day Adventist Church. People rationalize situations to make them consistent with their worldview.

Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals, when presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must behave contrary to their worldview, experience "cognitive dissonance."
A little more than 40 years ago, Leon Festinger published A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957). Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance has been one of the most influential theories in social psychology (Jones, 1985). It has generated hundreds and hundreds of studies, from which much has been learned about the determinants of attitudes and beliefs, the internalization of values, the consequences of decisions, the effects of disagreement among persons, and other important psychological processes.
An example used by Festinger (1957) may assist in elucidating the theory. A habitual smoker who learns that smoking is bad for health will experience dissonance, because the knowledge that smoking is bad for health is dissonant with the cognition that he continues to smoke. He can reduce the dissonance by changing his behavior, that is, he could stop smoking, which would be consonant with the cognition that smoking is bad for health. Alternatively, the smoker could reduce dissonance by changing his cognition about the effect of smoking on health and believe that smoking does not have a harmful effect on health (eliminating the dissonant cognition). He might look for positive effects of smoking and believe that smoking reduces tension and keeps him from gaining weight (adding consonant cognitions). Or he might believe that the risk to health from smoking is negligible compared with the danger of automobile accidents (reducing the importance of the dissonant cognition). In addition, he might consider the enjoyment he gets from smoking to be a very important part of his life (increasing the importance of consonant cognitions).
Since it was presented by Festinger over 40 years ago, cognitive dissonance theory has continued to generate research, revision, and controversy. Part of the reason it has been so generative is that the theory was stated in very general, highly abstract terms. As a consequence, it can be applied to a wide variety of psychological topics involving the interplay of cognition, motivation, and emotion. A person can have cognitions about behaviors, perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings. Cognitions can be about oneself, another person or group, or about things in the environment. Rather than being relevant to a single topic, the theory is relevant to many different topics.

Aesop tells a story about a fox that tried in vain to reach a cluster of grapes that dangled from a vine above his head. The fox leapt high to grasp the grapes, but the delicious-looking fruit remained just out of reach of his snapping jaws. After a few attempts the fox gave up and said to himself, ''These grapes are sour, and if I had some I would not eat them."
Aesop's fable is the source of the phrase ''sour grapes." The story illustrates cognitive dissonance. It is the distressing mental state in which people feel they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."
The fox's retreat from the grape arbor clashed with his knowledge that the grapes were tasty. By changing his attitude toward the grapes, he provided an acceptable explanation for his behavior.
Festinger claimed that people avoid information that is likely to increase dissonance. Not only do we tend to select reading material and television programs that are consistent with our existing beliefs, we usually choose to be with people who are like us. By taking care to ''stick with our own kind," we can maintain the relative comfort of the status quo. Like-minded people buffer us from ideas that could cause discomfort. In that sense, the process of making friends is an example of selecting our own propaganda.
There are essentially two modes of thinking:
Mode 1 - Reason precedes sentiment (the rare mode)
This is the rarest mode of thinking. In this mode, the individual, in the process of forming an opinion, examines carefully all of the facts of the matter, forms a hypothesis, and then attempts to disprove his own hypothesis. After a certain amount of rigorous examination and refutation of his own hypothesis, he may or may not conclude that the hypothesis is sound. If the hypothesis does not survive close examination and refutation, it is discarded and a new hypothesis is formed. If the hypothesis is sound, he incorporates it into his weltanschauung (world view).
In the process of incorporating the hypothesis or idea into his world view, certain sentiments are attached to the idea.....the idea becomes a "belief." Sentiment is the foundation of all thought, it is the motive force behind thought. So, even before the hypothesis is formed, there is sentiment, but there are competing sentiments. It is the hallmark of the rational mind to allow reason to be the justification for sentiment. Once a rational/reasoned hypothesis is decided upon among competing hypotheses, a sentiment is chosen from competing sentiments. Reason precedes sentiment.....reason justifies sentiment.

Mode 2 - Sentiment precedes reason (the ubiquitous mode)
This is by far, the most common form of thinking. In this mode of thinking, a sentiment is chosen first from competing sentiments, then hypotheses are formed to "rationalize" the sentiment. The individual seeks facts and ideas which justify the sentiment......sentiment justifies reason. This is an inferior and primitive form of thinking. The individual "rationalizes" emotions. Why does the individual choose one sentiment over another? What is the justification for choosing one sentiment over another at first? That's just it, there is no justification.....it is irrational. To a large extent it depends on the imagery of childhood experience....an imagery which, by the way, can be influenced and controlled by early exposure to propaganda and indoctrination. People who use mode2 thinking are easily susceptible to imagery and pandering. The efficacy of propaganda is directly proportional to the percentage of the audience that uses mode2 thinking.

There is a connection between mode 2 thinking and cognitive dissonance. Emotionally based thinking is much more susceptible to facts and logic which contradict the justification for that thinking or emotional worldview. Factually or logically inconsistent cognitions are countered not with consistent factual/logical cognitions, but with emotional cognitions. For the mode 2 thinker, the universe is not a matter of logic and fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when presented with logic or facts that contradict a strongly held emotion, they respond not with a logical/factual refutation of that contradiction, but with an emotional refutation. The mode 2 thinker refutes emotionally, not logically. This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts with mode 2 thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional discussion or debate. It is like trying to debate with a child...they simply don't hear you.
How can one counter emotional arguments? Answer: It is not possible. Mode 2 thinkers cannot be persuaded rationally...i.e. with facts and logic that contradict their worldview. Only rational individuals can be persuaded with contradictory facts and logic.
The question is this then: How does one persuade an irrational person? The simple answer is....conditioning. Mode 2 thinkers can only be persuaded by subtle conditioning, by adding the gist of the argument that is to persuade them as a subtext to the plots of the stories that they consume as entertainment. Vicarious identification seems to be the only effective means of persuading mode 2 thinkers. One on one debates....ineffective. Informational propaganda...ineffective. Manipulating the story characters with whom they identify and controlling the means of propagating these stories (movies, television, etc)......very effective.
Cognitive dissonance is a rather indirect method of social influence (behavior modification) that produces more lasting attitude changes because people subject to dissonance manipulations have the illusion of "making a free choice" in changing their attitudes. This can be contrasted with more direct, coercive methods of social influence that generally have only a short term impact, if any. When people feel coerced they are more likely to rebel against the coercion because of a lack of "Free Choice".

Communal Reinforcement
Communal reinforcement is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Often, the mass media contribute to the process by uncritically supporting the claims. More often, however, the mass media provide tacit support for untested and unsupported claims by saying nothing skeptical about even the most outlandish of claims. Communal reinforcement explains how entire nations can pass on ineffable gibberish from generation to generation. It also explains how testimonials reinforced by other testimonials within the community of therapists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, politicians, talk show hosts, etc., can supplant and be more powerful than scientific studies or accurate gathering of data by disinterested parties.

Note to Black Men: If Afrikan men find themselves conditioned into a situation and mentality that does not measure up to the definition of manhood they know they should be fulfilling, then despair sets in. It is a natural response when waking to an involuntary suppression. Contradictions between what one knows one must do and what one is doing always creates psychological discomfort or 'cognitive dissonance'. Imbalance creates anxiety. Spirit, mind and body strive for equilibrium, for balance (justice).