Milton Rosenberg writes,
<"cognitive dissonance" is somewhat off mark. The term does, indeed,
originate with Leon Festinger but it means something more precise than
"inconsistency" which is what you really mean to designate.>
Rosenberg incorrectly puts words in my mouth. My original comment and the
context stand. He cites his own early article and he points to rewards as
though they were something newly discovered. Yet in his comments he omits
any reference that teaching evolution also conveys rewards to students in
the form of grades and the positive reinforcements and approvals that
teachers/professors give in the classroom. The paradox is the students learn
the concepts to earn the rewards but they may nevertheless reject the theory
as truth.
Not long after Rosenbergs article (circa 1965), Sacks reviewed the
relationship of cognitive dissonance, attitudes,
gratifications/reinforcements, and affiliation in groups (1971)
"Affiliational Behavior: A Concept and Typology of the Individual's social
and political Developmental Processes in Groups, Organizations, and Society"
(Stephen Miles Sacks, MPA thesis, Paley Library at Temple University).
Moreover, the literature of political behavior included Festinger's work and
dissonance reduction as a leading paradigm. Given the conflict of teaching
evolution Vs creationism in schools, the analyses of political attitudes,
group leadership, and the whole realm of affiliational behavior are germane.
Thirty years after Rosenberg's article, Festinger's ideas about cognitive
dissonance and dissonance reduction are widely renewed and made relevant to
a wide range of study in the areas mentioned to the dismay of his critics.
The point of my original posting is many apt and capable students do indeed
reject the idea of evolution as a grand scheme (macro) though they may
understand the process natural selection in individual cases (micro).
Paradigms of attitudes, opinions, rewards, affiliational behavior, group
leadership and other approaches offer explanations of the students'
behavior. So does the possibility that some of the students may reason there
are other and better explanations to the grand scheme of life on Earth.
There is also the possibility that some of the students are rigid in their
thinking due to the intensity and value placed on their previous sources of
gratifications and reinforcements, such as religion or their family's
attitudes and beliefs. In any case the result is the same, namely,
dissonance reduction (Festinger) either by rationalization or by attitude
change (learning) to optimize/maximize rewards and avoid/minimize negative
reinforcements.
Best wishes,
Stephen Miles Sacks, MPA, Ph.D.,
Editor and Publisher
SCIPOLICY-The Journal of Science and Health Policy
Box 504, Haverford, PA 19041
Voice and Fax: 610-658-2332 (24 hours)
Website: http://www.Scipolicy.net
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
The premier issue is for Fall 2000 is now available. The issue focuses on
The Future of Large-Scale Health Systems and includes several articles on
health systems and the problems, changes in institutional ethics, and a case
study of the University of Pennsylvania Health System. Subscriptions and
orders for individual copies can be placed on line at
http://www.Scipolicy.net. Proposals and contributed articles are welcome.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Rosenberg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance
> Whatever you posit about why students reject evolutionary theory, the use
of
> the concept of "cognitive dissonance" is somewhat off mark. The term does,
> indeed, originate with Leon Festinger but it means soemthing more precise
> than "inconsistency" which is what you really mean to designate. Cognitive
> dissonance theory, at least as regards attitudes, focusses upon
> "counter-attitudinal advocacy undertaken for high or low incentives (i.e.
> promised rewards). The apparently paradocxical prediction is that whover
> areues against his own convictions for minimally rewarding enticement is
> more likely to shift his attitude in the formerly inauthentic direction
than
> the one who does the same for more rewarding enticement. There are
terrible
> limits to the applicability of this model (cf. my article When Dissonance
> Fails in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology way back in 1965 or
> thereabouts).
> So, back to the more basic an non-musical term "inconsistency" which
> designates any and all cognitive encounters with mutually opposed
> propositions or percepts.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Mann [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:30 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance
>
>
> Subject: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance
>
> The heavily qualified Stephen Sacks wrote:
> >
> >Some of you may have observed that after teaching evolution and testing
> >students' knowledge of it, some of the A and B students comment that
> >although they understand Darwin's concepts, they nevertheless do not
> believe
> >it. Surely some of the students had religious training and come from
> >religious families, but many of the students are secular with non
religious
> >peers and culture.
> >
> >One explanation is, since the students demonstrated they learned the
> >concepts, cognitive dissonance occurred (Leon Fessinger). The students
> >reject evolution as a way of reducing the dissonance as opposed to
> embracing
> >evolutionary thought to reduce the dissonance.
> >
> >Another explanation is, students reject attempts to get them to
personally
> >accommodate to Darwin thought now matter how well they understand the
> >concepts.
> >
> >Another explanation is the students are bright and they have attempted to
> >intellectually falsify the thesis, and they wind up rejecting it because
of
> >its weaknesses and not being airtight.
> >
> >Just how far do you think teaching should go to encourage personal
> >accommodation and adaptation to evolutionary thought? If faculty
encourage
> >to students to use what they learn, is not social construction being
> >introduced in science teaching?
> >
> >Your thoughts on any of the above will be appreciated. If there is enough
> >interest and new analysis, we may want to publish an article about it.
> >
>
> I don't doubt that all these influences operate.
> In NZ universities, teachers report considerable numbers of
> students turning away from biology because it is taught with evolution
> suitably woven in, whereas the students' parents are 'creationists'. This
> is a very unfortunate malign influence on education.
> But I like to think some students perceive, if only vaguely, that
> neoDarwinism is one of the biggest intellectual con-tricks of all time.
> This has been shown by N D Broom in his book 'How Blind Is The
Watchmaker?'
> (Ashgate 1998) and shortly before in The Ecologist.
>
> R
>
> -
> Robt Mann
> consultant ecologist
> P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
> (9) 524 2949
|
