05/01/2023
By Thomas Gordon

The Department of Psychology invites you to the public defense of David Lovece's dissertation titled, "The Relationship Between Cognitive Dissonance and the Adoption of Violent Attitudes and/or Behaviors: Linkages to Approach vs. Avoidance Personality, Social Equality vs. Social Domination Attitudes, and Trust vs. Distrust in Government."

Date: May 15, 2023
Time: 10 a.m. to noon
Place: Coburn Hall room 410

Dissertation Committee:

  • Thomas F. Gordon, Committee Chair, Psychology Department
  • Mary N. Duell, Psychology Department
  • Joseph E. Gonzales, Psychology Department

Brief Abstract:
The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance posits that cognitively and behaviorally humans prefer consistency of attitudes and behaviors. When inconsistent attitudes/behaviors are held, the individual will feel tension or stress and will act, consciously or non-consciously, to reduce that stress by either adjusting attitudes or behaviors, or both.
This research addresses the extent to which holding inconsistent attitudes across three major domains of experience (1) approach vs. avoidance personality traits, (2) social equality vs. social domination attitudes, and (3) trust vs. distrust of government, relates to the individual's willingness to sanction violent or aggressive attitudes or behaviors. Multiple regression analyses were conducted using the three dissonance domains as predictors of 8 antisocial attitudes/behaviors ranging from willingness to participate in antisocial activities to the sanctioning of violent actions such as taking up arms or the use of political assassination to achieve social or political goals.
An existing survey database of 1202 adults collected in 2019 as part of the MINERVA terrorism research project (Dr. Neil Shortland, PI, UML School of Criminology and Justice Studies) was used to address the research question posed. The variance explained for each of the eight regression analyses ranged from 34.4% (willingness to sanction aggression/violence to protect one's group) to 57.3% (willingness to engage in the dehumanization of others to achieve social/political goals). All eight of the outcome measures tested were significant at the p<.001 level of significance, showing that holding inconsistent attitudes related to willingness to sanction aggression/violence to achieve social or political goals.