Vaidis David C, Bran Alexandre
Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale, Institut de Psychologie, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Front Psychol. 2019 May 29;10:1189. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01189. eCollection 2019.
Despite its long tradition in social psychology, we consider that Cognitive Dissonance Theory presents serious flaws concerning its methodology which question the relevance of the theory, limit breakthroughs, and hinder the evaluation of its core hypotheses. In our opinion, these issues are mainly due to operational and methodological weaknesses that have not been sufficiently addressed since the beginnings of the theory. We start by reviewing the ambiguities concerning the definition and conceptualization of the term . We then review the ways it has been operationalized and we present the shortcomings of the actual paradigms. To acquire a better understanding of the theory, we advocate a stronger focus on the nature and consequences of the cognitive dissonance state itself. Next, we emphasize the actual lack of standardization, both in the ways to induce cognitive dissonance and to assess it, which impairs the comparability of the results. Last, in addition to reviewing these limits, we suggest new ways to improve the methodology and we conclude on the importance for the field of psychology to take advantage of these important challenges to go forwards.
尽管认知失调理论在社会心理学领域有着悠久的传统,但我们认为该理论在方法论方面存在严重缺陷,这些缺陷质疑了该理论的相关性,限制了突破,并阻碍了对其核心假设的评估。我们认为,这些问题主要源于自该理论诞生以来一直未得到充分解决的操作和方法上的弱点。我们首先回顾一下该术语定义和概念化方面的模糊性。然后我们回顾其被操作化的方式,并指出实际范式的缺点。为了更好地理解该理论,我们主张更加强调认知失调状态本身的性质和后果。接下来,我们强调在诱发认知失调和评估认知失调的方式上实际缺乏标准化,这损害了结果的可比性。最后,除了回顾这些局限性之外,我们提出改进方法论的新方法,并就心理学领域利用这些重大挑战向前发展的重要性得出结论。