CSU Implementation of CDT in Teaching and Learning Article Discussion article critique that addresses the following elements. Explain the research methodo

CSU Implementation of CDT in Teaching and Learning Article Discussion article critique that addresses the following elements.

Explain the research methodology that was used in the study.
Discuss social factors that influence people or groups to conform to the actions of others.
Indicate how behaviors and motivation are impacted by the presence of others.
Indicate the structures of the brain that are involved in emotion and motivation.
Examine the article’s generalizability to various areas of psychology.

In addition, your article critique should clearly identify the article’s premise and present an insightful and thorough analysis with strong arguments and evidence. You should present your own informed and substantiated opinion on the article’s content. You must use at least one source in addition to your chosen article to support your analysis and opinion.

Your article critique must be a minimum of two pages in length, not including the title and reference pages. All sources used must be properly cited. Your article critique, including all references, must be formatted in APA style. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology
© 2019 American Psychological Association
ISSN: 2332-2101
2020, Vol. 6, No. 1, 84 –90
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000168
PEDAGOGICAL POINTS TO PONDER
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Bringing Cognitive Dissonance Theory Into the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning: Topics and Questions in Need
of Investigation
April McGrath
Mount Royal University
Cognitive dissonance theory is perhaps the best known theory to emanate from social
psychology. The theory was originally conceived by Festinger in the 1950s and is still
the basis of active research programs today. One area for further exploration of the
theory lies in the realm of the scholarship of teaching and learning. The present essay
outlines existing connections between cognitive dissonance and teaching and learning
while also highlighting topics and questions that have yet to be addressed. Understanding more about the role of cognitive dissonance in the classroom would both strengthen
our understanding of the theory and provide helpful insights into our educational
practices. This theory provides an example of an area for translational research where
we connect social psychology findings from lab-based studies to the applied setting of
university education.
Keywords: cognitive dissonance theory, applied social psychology, teaching psychology, academic dishonesty, student misconceptions
portive ways) is known as the state of cognitive
dissonance. Cognitive dissonance theory (CDT;
Festinger, 1957) is a topic in introductory social
psychology courses, but beyond this coverage
of it, and our own personal experiences with it,
we may not see its broader implications in the
processes of teaching and learning. As instructors we may experience dissonance in relation
to our work, but it is also worthwhile to consider students’ experiences of dissonance in
higher education. This essay aims to demonstrate the relevance of CDT for instructors in
higher education, while also suggesting research topics to examine CDT in the context of
teaching and learning.
Instructors at postsecondary institutions create course objectives each academic year. These
objectives can shift over time, based on past
experience and changes in priorities. Imagine
that one of your recent objectives was to connect more with students who are struggling.
Accomplishing all of one’s objectives during
the academic year can be challenging, and unfortunately you were unable to connect with, or
support, struggling students beyond what you
have done in past courses. This bothers you
because you have become increasingly concerned with how to support these students. The
discomfort produced by these conflicting cognitions (i.e., supporting struggling students is
important to me, but I failed to behave in sup-
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
According to CDT, cognitive consistency is a
key motivational property for humans. The
presence of an inconsistency between cognitions produces an aversive state of arousal,
which can be remedied by changing a cognition
or behavior, adding consonant cognitions,
This article was published Online First September 23,
2019.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to X April McGrath, Psychology Department, Mount Royal
University, 4825 Mount Royal Gate Southwest, Calgary, AB,
Canada T3E 6K6. E-mail: amcgrath@mtroyal.ca
84
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IN SOTL
and/or by reducing the importance of the inconsistent cognitions (Festinger, 1957). The theory
has inspired considerable empirical work. Following its introduction, CDT inspired over
1,000 studies in just two decades, and now more
than 50,000 participants have been included in
dissonance studies (Laird, 2007, p. 158).
More recently, some researchers have examined the motivational properties of dissonance
and have highlighted strong connections between guilt and dissonance (Kenworthy, Miller,
Collins, Read, & Earleywine, 2011). Other researchers have focused on the fundamental role
of cognitive consistency for human understanding and behavior by examining the functional
purpose of cognitive dissonance (Gawronski &
Brannon, 2019; Harmon-Jones & HarmonJones, 2019). According to the action-based
model of cognitive dissonance, the proximal
reason for reducing dissonance is to reduce negative affect, whereas the distal motive is to meet
our need for effective action (Harmon-Jones &
Harmon-Jones, 2008, p. 1524; Harmon-Jones,
Harmon-Jones, & Levy, 2015). When relevant
cognitions are inconsistent with one another,
this state can undermine one’s decision to act.
For example, an individual’s commitment to
exercise may be supported by several positive
cognitions (e.g., improved fitness, improved
mood) but can be undermined by negative cognitions (e.g., time commitment, financial cost,
unpleasantness), and it is through the resolution
of these inconsistent cognitions that one can
proceed with the activity (see Harmon-Jones et
al., 2015, p. 185). Currently, researchers continue to explore ways to measure dissonance
(e.g., facial electromyography; Levy, HarmonJones, & Harmon-Jones, 2018) and find new
applications of the theory (Ent & Gerend,
2016).
A Place for Cognitive Dissonance in
Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning (SoTL)
Although CDT may not be traditionally
thought of as a theory applicable to teaching and
learning, it is a wide-reaching theory that does
hold implications for education. In fact, when
explaining that the magnitude of the cognitive
dissonance state is dependent on the importance
of the inconsistent cognitions, Festinger (1957)
explained this point with an example from ed-
85
ucation. He wrote that a student who has not
studied for an important exam, and who knows
that her current knowledge of the material is
inadequate, could experience a high level of
discomfort (p. 16). The relevant cognitions
“performing well on this exam is important”
and “I am unlikely to perform well” are inconsistent, and this inconsistency would lead to the
unpleasant arousal state known as dissonance.
As instructors, we can likely think of other
scenarios that would arouse dissonance for students. In addition to these academic scenarios,
the function of cognitive dissonance itself is
rooted in learning. Gawronski and Brannon
(2019) noted that cognitive inconsistency serves
important epistemic and pragmatic functions.
Dissonance acts as a cue to alert us to errors in
our belief system, which in turn can compromise appropriate action. Essentially, by being
alert to cognitive inconsistencies we have an
opportunity to revise our understanding (i.e.,
learn) and then proceed with an appropriate
course of action. Last, other authors have suggested that cognitive dissonance can be a key
motivator for critical thinking because it can
encourage an individual to engage with information that conflicts with one’s existing beliefs
(Campbell & Oswald, 2018). Given these connections between CDT and learning, I think we
should extend the work on CDT by examining it
in SoTL. In the next three sections, I highlight
three specific areas within SoTL to which CDT
can be applied.
Cognitive Dissonance in the Classroom:
Cheating
A prime example of a situation that could
arouse dissonance because of a discrepancy between one’s behavior and the standards for behavior is academic dishonesty. It is also possible to use the threat of cognitive dissonance as
a tool to reduce cheating. As would be expected
based on CDT, Shu, Gino, and Bazerman
(2011) found that requiring people to sign an
honor code immediately before a performance
task effectively eliminated cheating. Signing an
honor code commits the individual to acting
with integrity going forward, and thus, to avoid
dissonance, the individual would have to refrain
from cheating. This work suggests that a simple
reminder and commitment to act honestly may
be sufficient to curb cheating. It is important to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
86
MCGRATH
note that the timing of the dissonance intervention may be critical because in other work when
researchers presented information on an ethical
code of practice a week prior to a quiz, 45% of
the students still engaged in cheating (Woodbine & Amirthalingam, 2013).
Another way to dissuade cheating, which is
grounded in CDT, would be through the use of
hypocrisy. Vinski and Tryon (2009) attempted
to arouse a state of cognitive dissonance about
cheating among students using a modified hypocrisy procedure. The hypocrisy procedure
was developed about 35 years after the introduction of CDT and is designed to encourage
behavior change rather than attitude change
(Aronson, Fried, & Stone, 1991). In this procedure, participants are asked to declare supportive statements about positions they already endorse (e.g., always recycle). These public
statements result in a state of cognitive dissonance when participants are asked to recall past
failures where they did not act accordingly. A
recent meta-analysis highlighted the effectiveness of this intervention for behavior change
(Priolo et al., 2019), but there are few examples
where this intervention has been applied to the
classroom. Vinski and Tryon (2009) offered one
example of an educational application where
the intention was to induce dissonance for students who publicly declare the importance of
not cheating but then privately recall times
when they did in fact cheat.
According to past research on the hypocrisy
procedure, students should reduce dissonance
by not cheating because the most direct route to
dissonance reduction under this experimental
manipulation is behavior change (Stone & Fernandez, 2008). Yet, in the study by Vinski and
Tryon (2009), contrary to expectations that
those in the hypocrisy group would report less
favorable attitudes toward cheating and less
cheating behavior postintervention compared to
a control group, this was not the case. The
intervention did not produce positive effects,
and it is possible that the modifications made to
the hypocrisy procedure resulted in a failure to
arouse cognitive dissonance among participants.
In this study, the hypocrisy procedure occurred over a 3-day period rather than in the
typical single laboratory session. Specifically,
all participants completed an academic honesty
scale on Days 1 and 3 of the procedure, which
assessed attitudes toward cheating and selfreported cheating. Participants in the hypocrisy
group completed a focus-group session on Day
2 to establish a school policy about academic
dishonesty, which the researchers thought
would arouse dissonance (i.e., this would highlight a discrepancy between advocating for academic honesty but previously admitting on the
academic honesty scale that one had cheated).
This procedure differed substantially from the
standard hypocrisy procedure in terms of (a)
the order in which stimuli are presented, (b) the
length of the procedure, (c) the nature of the
public commitment, and (d) the outcome variables measured, which highlights the complexities involved in converting a lab-based procedure to an applied educational setting. One
important consideration to help understand
these surprising results is that by extending the
length of the procedure, the researchers may
have inadvertently given the participants an opportunity to reduce their dissonance through
nonbehavioral means (e.g., trivialization, justifications). This study serves as an example of
translational research in action, but more work
remains to determine how to adapt the hypocrisy procedure to an academic setting to encourage behavior change among students. Researchers could begin this process by making less
dramatic modifications to the hypocrisy procedure and tracking relevant outcomes (for a review see Stone & Fernandez, 2008).
In addition to dissonance-inducing interventions aimed at lowering the rates of cheating
among students, it is also worthwhile to examine how students deal with the cognitive dissonance arising from unethical behavior. Stephens
(2017) suggested that both attributions and social norms can help mitigate the dissonance
experienced by cheating. Attributions that serve
as mechanisms of moral disengagement allow
individuals to deny responsibility and instead
blame the situation and others for the discrepant
behavior, and indeed denial of responsibility
was the most commonly reported rationalization among students in one large crossinstitutional study (McCabe, 1992). In addition
to self-serving attributions, Stephens suggested
that perceived social norms of frequent cheating
behavior combined with a culture that does not
actively disapprove of cheating would reduce
one’s level of dissonance about engaging in
cheating.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IN SOTL
To summarize, the topic of cheating is a clear
entry point for extending our understanding of
CDT in the academic context. Interventions
aimed at both eliciting dissonance and reducing
cheating, as well as investigations of the ways
students reduce dissonance, represent the process of cognitive dissonance from beginning to
end: inconsistency— cognitive dissonance
state—regulation strategies (Vaidis & Bran,
2018). Examining this process in relation to
other topics in SoTL will give us a better understanding of (a) the issues and experiences in
higher education that are likely to arouse cognitive dissonance, (b) the various ways students
reduce dissonance, and (c) the application of
findings from cognitive dissonance to modify
behavior in ways to support learning. With this
in mind, the following sections highlight two
other content areas that are ripe for examinations of CDT within SoTL.
Cognitive Dissonance in the Classroom:
Confronting Misconceptions
Recently, Bernstein (2017) argued for an
overhaul to the traditional introductory psychology course by refocusing the course on the
refutation of common misconceptions about human behavior, cognition, and affect. He argued
that by directly addressing misconceptions that
students hold when they enter the course, we
can make that course a more valuable learning
experience. This is a prime example showing
the link between CDT and teaching and learning. Refuting misconceptions requires the recognition of inconsistent beliefs (e.g., I believe
eyewitness testimony is a highly reliable source
of evidence, but my instructor is presenting
evidence to the contrary), which should arouse a
state of dissonance. Recent research on refutational teaching (i.e., explicitly addressing misconceptions) has found that “these results support other studies that find small but significant
long-term benefits to refutational teaching for
changing prior misconceptions” (Kowalski &
Taylor, 2017, p. 90). In addition to measuring
long-term retention of the material, we could
also explore student reactions to this teaching
method to ascertain whether students experience dissonance, and if they do, we could then
further explore the ways they reduce that dissonance, which may include things other than
changing their misconceptions. For example,
87
directly confronting misconceptions in introductory psychology may lead students to
change their beliefs about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, but it is also possible that
they may engage in confirmation bias.
Cognitive Dissonance in the Classroom:
Discrepancies Between Knowledge and Use
of Effective Study Strategies
Related to misconceptions is research focused on effective study strategies versus the
study strategies commonly used by students
(Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013; Foerst,
Klug, Jöstl, Spiel, & Schober, 2017). In an
effort to overcome the passive and less effective
study strategies often preferred by students,
Chew (2010) described a presentation for students about learning misconceptions and noted
that demonstration is a key aspect of the presentation, because simply telling students about
misconceptions will probably not result in
changes to such deeply held beliefs or practices.
In fact, work in this area has revealed that
learners cling firmly to old ways even when
their current experience suggests a different
strategy is more effective (Kornell & Bjork,
2008). And of importance, it is not only students
who hold erroneous beliefs about learning; in a
study by Hunter and Lloyd (2018), over half of
the faculty respondents indicated they recommend only passive study strategies (e.g., review
or rereading) to their students. These authors
concluded that we must address faculty misconceptions around learning strategies. One question to pursue in this line of work is whether
instructors experience cognitive dissonance
when confronted with information that runs
contrary to their beliefs about learning. For example, if I recommend rereading and highlighting as key study strategies for my students but
am then confronted with information suggesting
these strategies are not particularly useful, how
will I resolve these conflicting cognitions? Will
I reduce dissonance by changing my recommendation?
A discrepancy between what one knows
about study strategies and what one actually
does when studying (e.g., knowing retrieval
practice is helpful but not actually doing it) will
not necessarily be resolved through behavioral
change. Festinger (1957) noted that behavioral
change can often be difficult and unpleasant and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
88
MCGRATH
that reducing dissonance by changing one’s
thoughts or generating new supportive thoughts
can be an effective and less effortful means of
reducing dissonance. A case in point is a study
that examined the dissonance between knowledge and use of self-regulated learning (SRL)
strategies (Foerst et al., 2017). Despite having
advanced knowledge of SRL strategies, students did not necessarily act on this knowledge.
Students reported a variety of reasons for this
discrepancy, reasons that included not enough
time, not seeing the benefit of the SRL strategy,
not being able to use it effectively, and finding
the SRL strategy too arduous, among others.
The challenge now is to design interventions
that can harness dissonance to nudge students
toward behavior change regarding their study
strategies, and part of this process might involve
working with students to challenge some of
these dissonance-reducing beliefs.
Future Research Linking Cognitive
Dissonance to SoTL
A list of potential topics to explore CDT as it
relates to education would no doubt be extensive because any experience that centers on
inconsistency could be relevant. Although I described the hypocrisy procedure in the context
of the inconsistency that can arise from cheating, researchers could also examine this procedure as a way to promote other learning outcomes. For example, Gehlbach (2010)
suggested a modified version of the procedure
wherein students acting as tutors and stressing
the importance of homework completion to tutees would be expected to experience cognitive
dissonance if their own behavior (i.e., homework completion…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment