Is the ability to get someone do something you want done and to make things happen in the way you want?

You may not be familiar with the term “cognitive dissonance,” but it’s the phrase psychologists use to describe a phenomenon that you likely encounter regularly, if not daily. We humans probably always have, though it wasn’t until the 1950s that the social psychologist Leon Festinger outlined its theory and named it. Since then it’s become one of the most influential theories in psychology. (1)

Show

“Cognitive dissonance is basically this phenomenon whereby we have a natural drive for consistency, in that our belief system must be consistent with itself and it must be consistent with our actions,” says Matt Johnson, PhD, a professor and research fellow at Hult International Business School who is based in Boston. But that consistency doesn’t always happen, and distress can arise as a result.

Festinger’s original premise was that humans prefer to live in a stable world, in which beliefs are consistent with one another and actions align with beliefs. So when you fall out of that perfect harmony and either think or act in opposition to your belief system, tension builds and you become distressed. That distress is called dissonance.

The theory further suggests that present actions can influence subsequent beliefs and values, a conundrum psychologists have noted when studying cognitive dissonance. Our beliefs and values should determine our actions, not the other way around — right?

But if we accept that our beliefs or values can influence our actions and that our actions can influence our beliefs or values, that helps explain a lot of very common human tendencies: like our tendency to rationalize or justify behavior, or the way our beliefs and values change as we navigate different situations in life, and that common human pitfall, hypocrisy. (2)

It’s a universal feeling that all humans have to deal with. “Cognitive dissonance is common to everyone as we encounter different decisions and experiences in our lives that may challenge our existing belief systems or contradict some of our current behaviors,” says Corrine Leikam, PsyD, a licensed clinical psychologist based in Woodland Hills, California.

RELATED: Cognitive Dissonance Happens in Real Life All the Time

Why is it important to think about how cognitive dissonance relates to your own health and wellness? Because the mental or emotional distress it can cause can definitely affect your health and well-being.

The intensity of the discomfort that comes from cognitive dissonance depends somewhat on personality. People who are flexible enough to adjust their thoughts or live with “gray areas” may not have a strong response when they notice the discrepancies. “Some people may experience it more intensely or frequently if they have a high need for consistency in their lives,” Dr. Leikam says. And recognizing and addressing those negative thoughts or emotions is important.

verb

to suggest that someone does something that you believe would be good

verb

to make someone agree to do something by giving them reasons why they should

verb

to persuade someone to do something

verb

to make someone feel determined to do something or enthusiastic about doing it

phrasal verb

to encourage someone to put more effort into something or to not stop trying to do something

verb

to encourage someone to do something

verb

to persuade someone to do something, especially by offering them an advantage or reward

verb

to persuade or encourage someone to do something

verb

formal to persuade someone not to do something

phrasal verb

formal to ask or persuade someone to do something

Is the ability to get someone do something you want done and to make things happen in the way you want?

(Photo: Pixabay)

When I first started as a youth worker in 1991, I was working in a medium-term accommodation unit for young people who were homeless. I really struggled with being in a position of authority having just graduated from a welfare degree that had emphasised “client self-determination.” I was really uncomfortable being in a type of parental role where I had to make decisions about what the young people could or couldn’t do, where I was responsible for behaviour management and where I had to be willing to set limits.

I was in a real position of power and I felt very uneasy about it, especially as I saw plenty of examples of power being used in quite coercive, if not abusive, ways. I had to learn ways of being in authority that were consistent with my philosophy and approach.

I was in a position of power over the residents, but I needed to learn this did not define the whole relationship, and there were other types of power that were also important which I could nurture.

A number of authors differentiate between four types of power [1-3].

  1. Power over
  2. Power with
  3. Power to
  4. Power within

Power over

Power over is how power is most commonly understood [1, 2]. This type of power is built on force, coercion, domination and control [1, 4], and motivates largely through fear [4]. This form of power is built on a belief that power is a finite resource that can be held by individuals, and that some people have power and some people do not.

Starhawk [4] argues that force, which enables one individual or group to make decisions affecting others and to take control, ultimately backs power over.

It may rule with weapons that are physical or by controlling the resources we need to live: money, food, medical care or by controlling more subtle resources: information, approval, love. We are so accustomed to power over, so steeped in its language and its implicit threats, that we often become aware of its functioning only when we see its extreme manifestations [4] (p. 9).

The other forms of power recognise that power is not owned by individuals but is a dynamic which is present in every relationship [5]. As Starhawk (1990) suggests:

Power is never static, for power is not a thing that we can hold or store, it is a movement, a relationship, a balance, fluid and changing. The power one person can wield over another is dependent on a myriad of external factors and subtle agreements (p. 268).

Power with

Power with is shared power that grows out of collaboration and relationships. It is built on respect, mutual support, shared power, solidarity, influence, empowerment and collaborative decision making [1, 2, 4, 5, 6]. Power with is linked to “social power, the influence we wield among equals” [4] (p. 9). Power with can help build bridges within groups (e.g., families, organisations, social change movements) or across differences (e.g., gender, culture, class) [1, 2]. Rather than domination and control, power with leads to collective action and the ability to act together [3].

Power to

Power to refers to the “productive or generative potential of power and the new possibilities or actions that can be created without using relationships of domination” [2] (p. 57). It is built on the “unique potential of every person to shape his or her life and world” [1] (p. 45). It is the power to make a difference, to create something new, or to achieve goals.

Power within

Power within is related to a person’s “sense of self-worth and self-knowledge; it includes an ability to recognize individual differences while respecting others” [1] (p. 45). Power within involves people having a sense of their own capacity and self-worth [2]. Power within allows people to recognise their “power to” and “power with”, and believe they can make a difference [1].

In working with families and communities, we want to nurture power with, power to and power within, not operating from a position of power-over. Our aim should not be to maximise our power over other people, but rather

To create the conditions whereby power can be shared. The purpose is to create the conditions in which each individual’s opportunity to exercise power is maximized in the context of the larger community [7] (p. 21).

If you liked this post please follow my blog, and you might like to look at:

If you find any problems with the blog, (e.g., broken links or typos) I’d love to hear about them. You can either add a comment below or contact me via the Contact page.

References

  1. VeneKlasen, L., & Miller, V. (2007). A new weave of power, people & politics: The action guide for advocacy and citizen participation. Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing. Chapter 3 on Power and Empowerment is available from https://justassociates.org/en/resources/new-weave-power-people-politics-action-guide-advocacy-and-citizen-participation
  2. Mathie, A., Cameron, J., & Gibson, K. (2017). Asset-based and citizen-led development: Using a diffracted power lens to analyze the possibilities and challenges. Progress in Development Studies, 17(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1177/1464993416674302 Available from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1464993416674302
  3. Hunjan, R., & Keophilavon, S. (2010). Power and making change happen. Fife: Carnegie UK Trust. Available from https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/power-and-making-change-happen/
  4. Starhawk. (1990). Truth or dare: Encounters with power, authority, and mystery. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.
  5. Meyerding, J. (1982). Reclaiming nonviolence: Some thoughts for feminist womyn who used to be nonviolent, and vice versa. In P. McAllister (Ed.), Reweaving the web of life: Feminism and nonviolence. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
  6. Berger, B. K. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to relations: Critical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 5-28. doi: 10.1207/s1532754xjprr1701_3 Available from https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1701_3
  7. Bruyn, S., & Rayman, P. (Eds.). (1979). Nonviolent action and social change.New York: Irvington Publishers.