 Cognitive Dissonance Theory and Policy Towards the Corona Epidemic in Developing CountriesJeffrey James ()
Chapter Chapter 2 in New Perspectives on Current Development Policy, 2021, pp 9-22 from Springer Abstract: Abstract Though there has been some success in reducing the vast numbers of those who refuse to comply with the rules regarding the wearing of masks, social distancing, and handwashing, there are still far too many millions of people who have not complied with these undemanding and effective measures. The goal is to ameliorate this vast problem by applying policies derived from one of the best-known theories of social psychology, known as cognitive dissonance. The theory is especially well suited to this task, because in essence it deals with ways to overcome the problem of effecting desirable behavioural change without forcing people to do so. It also deals with the alternative policy of forcing people to comply with interventions by the state. Forced compliance, as it is known, does not cause dissonance arousal, because the change in behaviour can be dismissed as something that had to be done, rather than as something that clashes with one’s beliefs. There is thus no dissonance arousal which is caused by a clash between one’s views and one’s behaviour. In some circumstances, however, there may be no alternative to enforcing strict coercive policy. Group pressure, the ‘foot-in-the-door’ technique, and induced hypocrisy are among the main ways in which to arouse dissonance and behaviour change, or, put another way, to induce people to engage in things they do not want to do, without forcing them to do so (with regard specifically to wearing masks, maintaining social distance, and washing hands). Coercive polices can be effective, though they may also fail to engender sustained behaviour change and they may also be accompanied by open dissension on the part of some segment of the affected population. Examples of the application of these dissonance-based policies, successful and unsuccessful and in both developed and developing countries, are provided, so as to bolster our limited knowledge of how they work and can be improved upon in the context of the current pandemic. Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; Cognitive dissonance; Group pressure; Induced hypocrisy; Coercion (search for similar items in EconPapers) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:spbchp:978-3-030-88497-0_2 Ordering information: This item can be ordered from DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-88497-0_2 Access Statistics for this chapter More chapters in SpringerBriefs in Economics from Springer |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.