Understanding Self-deception And Its Relation To Cognitive Dissonance

There are many contents in psychological literature about intrapsychic phenomena. Self-deception is not an exception. It is not easy to measure self-deception, as it is hard to determine if a person is conscious of the truth. It’s even more difficult to distinguish between mental-distortions and cognitive dissonance. This essay will provide an overview of various theories about self-deception that can help to understand the relationship between cognitive dissonance and self-deception. This paper will end up concluding that self-deception arises out of cognitive dissonance.

Let’s look at a theory suggesting that self-deception evolved in response to an unpleasant world. Hippel & Trivers (2011) have proposed this theory. They believe that self-deception gave rise to an evolutionary advantage. Self-deception allows one to deceive another by minimizing the cues they would use to reveal their deception. The deceiver can reap huge benefits from deceiving others, while the victim would have to pay a high price if they were falsely accused. Self-deception allows for evolutionary advantages by eliminating or mitigating cues which would reveal a conscious and deliberate deception. Self-deception can help reduce cognitive load and deceit because one doesn’t have to keep both the truth and deception in their minds. Hippel and Trivers identify several methods of information-processing bias that could have helped develop this advantage and contribute to self-deception.Hippel and Trivers investigate four information-processing biases: biased information search, biases interpretation, misremembering, and rationalization. It is possible to avoid confronting truths that do not align with one’s goals. One way to do this is to stop a search before reaching the truth. Another way is to only look for information that matches their goal. All these examples are confirmation biases and can lead to self deception via biased information searches. A biased interpretation of data can be made even though there is information presented from opposing parties. You can do this by selectively skepticism about data that contradicts the original belief. The third information-processing bias, misremembering, can occur through a self-enhancing recall bias, meaning that it is easier to remember positive actions that the self performed than negative actions. This could be a contributing factor to the evolutionary advantage that self-deception can have in general. A person has a social advantage if others believe they are better than them. It is possible to justify a person’s actions and make it seem like they were not intentionally doing so. Hippel and Trivers discuss the evolution of self-deception. They mention that, while initially it was used to deceive others, the positive feelings it generates towards oneself could have allowed it to be used in other situations.

This secondary self-deception which is only for oneself but not for others is very similar in nature to cognitive dissonance. Hippel & Trivers don’t refer to cognitive dissonance specifically, but they describe a form if self-deception that is easy to relate back in time to Festinger’s original theory (1957). Cognitive dissonance theory is a way for people to try to lessen the psychological discomfort that comes from unjustified behavior by changing one’s attitude. The reduction of cognitively dissonant thoughts can be accompanied by the desire to keep a belief about self, such that one is consistent or rational. This motivation can lead to self-deception about one’s original motivations or behavior.

Khalil (2017) strongly disagrees with Hippel’s and Trivers’s description of self deception. He attempts systematically to differentiate self-deception, as well as any other self distortion, from cognitive dissonance. Khalil slams Hippel and Trivers’ evolutionary explanation of self-deception. He points out two key ways self-deception can lead to negative results. Khalil points out studies that show that people are more capable of recognizing when someone is self-deceitful than the person initiating it. This may undermine the advantages self-deception offers in tricking others. Self-deception can lead to self-harmful behavior by convincing oneself that it is beneficial. Khalil maintains that this is against evolutionary-beneficial understandings of self -deception. Khalil gives a thorough definition of self-deception. Khalil defines self-deception as follows: “An agent must first be ex ante aware, at a deep-level, that a decision will be suboptimal. The agent must create a “fact” or ad-hoc reconstruction of facts in order to make the decision seem optimal. The evolutionary advantage theory does not allow for self-deception to be included. This means that only suboptimal decisions can be considered as self-deception. Khalil also explains what “self deception” should look like by separating it from cognitive disconance.

Khalil makes the distinction between cognitive distortion and self-deception in his paper. He argues that ex-post justification is necessary. This is justification that is based more on actual results than predicted. Cognitive dissonance is not dependent on ex-post justification. Khalil stated, “Cognitive Dissonance Reduction” is defined as the “bridging of the painful gap that exists between material utility (ethical utility)”. Cognitive dissonance can cause emotional discomfort. Self-deception is when you make decisions that are not true to reality. Cognitive dissonance, on the other hand, encourages psychological pain by changing your attitude. Khalil leaves the possibility open that cognitive dissonance can lead to self-deception. He rejects the notion of self-deception having any evolutionary advantage and self-deception is clearly irrational.

Khalil says that people who engage in self-deception are motivated by fear of or resistance to future self blame. If people were honest about their decision to be unfeasible, they would look down on themselves and blame others. Self-deception can be avoided if someone is willing to admit they chose the wrong option. But, not many people will admit to this. To avoid self-blame, they create a narrative that the best option is the one they chose.

Scott-Kakures (2009) offers a different lens to see self-deception. Scott-Kakures claims that self deception is used in order to resolve a cognitive dissonance question. Scott-Kakures states that self-deception can be described as a problem in our ability to answer questions. This is due to a motive to disrupt the process of hypothesis-testing. Scott-Kakures believes this motive stems from cognitive dissonance theory. It is the desire to be consistent and reduce psychological pain caused by inconsistent behavior. Scott-Kakures theory is the most explicit link between self-deception, cognitive dissonance and all other theories.

Each of these approaches to self-deception is unique and sometimes conflicting. These theories all agree on one thing: self-deception may be due to cognitive dissonance. It is actually closely connected to it. These theories agree that self -deception is not a reduction of cognitive dysfunction. It is also a step beyond that and may include an additional motive to keep one’s behavior consistent or answer a question. This will hopefully allow us to make clearer distinctions in our research on self-deception.

Sources

Festinger, Leon. Cognitive Dissonance Theory Evanston, Il. Stanford University Press released a book in 1957.

Khalil, E. L. (2017). Making sense out of self-deception: Differentiating self-deception between delusion and moral licensing. Philosophy, 92(4), 539-563. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/10.1017/S003181911700033X

Scott-Kakures, D. (2009). Unsettling questions: Cognitive dissonance in self-deception. Social Theory and Practice, 35(1), 73-106. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezp.lib.rochester.edu/10.5840/soctheorpract20093515

Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The psychology and evolution behind self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 1-16. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10001354