Research Objective

Human psychology is in general a myriad of complex and simultaneous activities and responses to stimuli, which have considerable impacts on the life of human beings and on various aspects of their every day activities, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, which in turn considerably effects their decision-making processes and the level of satisfaction or utility which they derive from the decisions taken by them (Heine 2015). However, many anomalies and situations occur in the aspects of human behaviours and decision-making attitudes, one of which is that of the phenomenon of Cognitive Dissonance, which, in a generalised framework can be referred to a conflicting situation between the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours of individuals.

The concerned study aims to see the implications of the cognitive dissonance on the level of satisfaction of the students with the higher educational institutions or colleges where they choose to study. The concerned study also aims to explore the magnitude of differences which are present in the level of cognitive dissonance of the students and how that effects their selection of colleges and also the features of the colleges or higher educational institute which contribute in the differences in the level of satisfaction of the students.

The research question which the study focusses on is as follows:

How cognitive dissonance among the students effect their level of satisfactions in the universities where they study?

There have been extensive studies regarding cognitive dissonance and its implications in different sectors of human life and also regarding the factors which contribute to the level of satisfaction of students in their venture towards attaining higher educations. Keeping this into consideration, the assignment tries to conduct an extensive review of the existing literary and scholarly works present in these domains so as to capture the different perceptions prevailing in these aspects.

The notion of “Cognitive Dissonance” can be seen to be comprehensively defined by Antoniou, Doukas and Subrahmanyam (2013), as a situation of conflicts arising between the attitudes as well as behaviours of an individual due to the presence of one or more contradicting ideas, beliefs or values regarding a particular aspect. This assertion is augmented by the views of Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones and Levy (2015), according to whom, this type of dissonance occurs in the attitudes and behaviours of individuals when their beliefs are clashed with new or different evidences as perceived by the concerned individuals. This, in general leads to a situation of mental discomfort as well as stress in the psychological domain, to reduce which the individuals try to resolve such contradictions (Wicklund and Brehm 2013).

Research Question

Hinojosa et al. (2017), highlights the three types of relationships which generally occur in real scenarios to be as follows:

1. Consonant Relationship-Where two actions or cognitions of human beings are consistent and in relevance to one another
2. Irrelevant Relationship-Where two actions or cognitions have no relationship with one another
3. Dissonant Relationship-Where two actions are inconsistent or not in relevance with each other (Perlovsky et al.2013).

However, the authors do not elaborate on linking these with the theoretical frameworks of cognitive dissonance which can be seen to be present over the years.

Unlike the previous scholarly evidences and literary works, Gawronski (2012) elaborates on the theoretical and conceptual frameworks which exist in the aspects of cognitive dissonance in the global scenario, specifically focussing on the Cognitive Dissonance Theory, first proposed by Leon Festinger (1957). As per the assertions of the author, this theory came into existence from the ground proposition that human beings, in general tend to achieve internal psychological consistency for the purpose of their psychological welfare, peace and proper functioning in real world. Thus, in the presence of any kind of internal inconsistency the level of discomfort rises which in turn motivates the individuals to work towards reduction of the cognitive dissonance, by changing different components of their attitudes or beliefs (Greenwald, Brock and Ostrom 2013). However, the authors do not elaborate on the ways in which these attitude changes take place.

Chang, Solomon and Westerfield (2016), in this context, taking reference of the principle of cognitive consistency derived from the Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Festigner (1957), try to highlight the ways in which in general the cognitive dissonances among the human beings are eliminated, which are as follows:

1. By changing one or more than one of the conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviours of the concerned individuals so as make the relationships between the actions consonant. However, as rightly countered by Liang (2016) implementing this mode of elimination of dissonance becomes difficult for people in most of the cases as they cannot easily change their well-learned and practiced behaviours.
2. By acquiring new and such information which helps in reducing the dissonant components in the attitudes or beliefs of the individuals. Liang (2016) asserts this method to be a much easier and more implemented dissonance reduction mode in the real-world scenarios.
3. By reducing the importance of the need to make the relationship between different actions to be a consonant one.

Hinojosa et al. (2017), in this context, compares three models of Cognitive Dissonance so as to explore the variations of the roles of self in the Cognitive Dissonance Process, as perceived by these models:

Self-Consistency Model- According to this model, dissonance arises when individuals perceive differences in their behaviours or actions and their self-perceptions of standards and moralities and thus the same is reduced through a moral justification of the behaviour. Here “self” serves as expectancy for the individual’s behaviour (Gawronski 2012).

Self-Affirmation Model- Here “self” is a resource for dissonance reduction and the goal of the same is restoration of morality and integrity of the whole system and not of that of saving the self-image of an individual (Baumeister, Bratslavsky and Muraven 2018).

New Look Model- This model disregards the importance of self in dissonance process and argues that individuals, irrespective of their self-esteem, can feel uncomfortable when dissonance arises in their behaviour due to violation of social or normative standards which they have been subjected to since their childhood.

Literature Review

To study the linkage of cognitive dissonance with that of the decisions and behaviours of the students, particularly in the aspects of seeking higher education, it is of immense to explore the different components existing in the aspects of their satisfaction level and the determinants present in this aspect.

Douglas et al. (2015) perceives student satisfaction (especially in the higher education or university level) as one of the key components for quality assurance of the educational institutions, in the context of increasingly competitive education market, where the students are the final consumers.

Theories of student satisfaction 

Exploring in the psychosocial dynamics of the notion of student satisfaction, Yusoff, McLeay and Woodruffe-Burton (2015), in their research, discusses several crucial theories in this domain, which are as follows:

1. Happy-productive Theory-According to this theory, the satisfaction of the students is mediated by different variables like those of stress, well-being and the level of coping up. As per this theory, if the level of distress of a student is high in a university, then that leads to low levels of satisfaction (Weerasinghe and Fernando 2017).
2. Consumer Satisfaction Theory-According to this theory, the satisfaction level of students depends on the level to which the expectations of the students regarding university which they select match with the actual experiences and perceptions of the same in the concerned university (Cheng et al.2016).

There exist different perceptions regarding the dimensions and factors required for increased student satisfaction in the aspects of higher education. Cazan and N?stas? (2015), in this context, highlights four crucial factors contributing to the level of satisfaction of university students to be as follows:

• Working conditions- Overall environment
• Education quality- Capabilities of the teachers
• Compensation- Financial costs and benefits
• Recognition- Sense of belonging to the society

Figure 1: Factors affecting University Student Satisfaction

(Source: Pubs.sciepub.com 2018)

On the other hand, Gibbons, Neumayer and Perkins (2015), indicates towards the following factors as drivers of satisfaction among university students:

• Support and guidance of the instructors
• Self-dedication to learn
• Course policies
• Quality of outcome

There exist multiple assertions regarding the ways in which the students rank different universities and on which the reputation of the universities depends. Wilkins and Huisman (2015), assert that the students, individually rank the universities on the basis of various factors (both related to academic as well as non-academic amenities).

Concentrating on comparing the national and global ranking systems for universities, Çak?r et al. (2015), in their paper find the differences to be as follows:

Figure 2: Differences in weightage of three indicators

(Source: Çak?r et al. 2015)

This indicates towards the fact that while the national ranking systems focus more on the aspects of institutional amenities, the global ranking system emphasizes significantly on the components of research related activities and success.

Conclusion

A significant absence of research regarding the linkage between cognitive dissonance among students and implications of the same on their level of satisfaction in the students’ process for attaining higher education can be seen to be existing in the contemporary literary framework, thereby indicating towards the scope of research in these domains in the present period, which validates the importance of the concerned research.

References 

Antoniou, C., Doukas, J.A. and Subrahmanyam, A., 2013. Cognitive dissonance, sentiment, and momentum. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 48(1), pp.245-275.

Cognitive Dissonance

Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E. and Muraven, M., 2018. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?. In Self-Regulation and Self-Control (pp. 24-52). Routledge.

Çak?r, M.P., Acartürk, C., Ala?ehir, O. and Çilingir, C., 2015. A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103(3), pp.813-848.

Cazan, A.M. and N?stas?, L.E., 2015. Emotional intelligence, satisfaction with life and burnout among university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, pp.1574-1578.

Chang, T.Y., Solomon, D.H. and Westerfield, M.M., 2016. Looking for someone to blame: Delegation, cognitive dissonance, and the disposition effect. The Journal of Finance, 71(1), pp.267-302.

Cheng, M., Taylor, J., Williams, J. and Tong, K., 2016. Student satisfaction and perceptions of quality: testing the linkages for PhD students. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(6), pp.1153-1166.

Douglas, J.A., Douglas, A., McClelland, R.J. and Davies, J., 2015. Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), pp.329-349.

Gawronski, B., 2012. Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition, 30(6), pp.652-668.

Gawronski, B., 2012. Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition, 30(6), pp.652-668.

Gibbons, S., Neumayer, E. and Perkins, R., 2015. Student satisfaction, league tables and university applications: evidence from Britain. Economics of Education Review, 48, pp.148-164.

Greenwald, A.G., Brock, T.C. and Ostrom, T.M. eds., 2013. Psychological foundations of attitudes. Academic Press.

Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C. and Levy, N., 2015. An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), pp.184-189.

Heine, S.J., 2015. Cultural psychology: Third International Student Edition. WW Norton & company.

Hinojosa, A.S., Gardner, W.L., Walker, H.J., Cogliser, C. and Gullifor, D., 2017. A review of cognitive dissonance theory in management research: Opportunities for further development. Journal of Management, 43(1), pp.170-199.

Liang, Y.J., 2016. Reading to make a decision or to reduce cognitive dissonance? The effect of selecting and reading online reviews from a post-decision context. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, pp.463-471.

Perlovsky, L., Cabanac, A., Bonniot-Cabanac, M.C. and Cabanac, M., 2013. Mozart effect, cognitive dissonance, and the pleasure of music. Behavioural Brain Research, 244, pp.9-14.

Pubs.sciepub.com 2018. Figure 2. Modified factors affecting satisfaction : Research on Factors Affecting the Postgraduate Students’ Satisfaction in the Quality of Training Services in Accounting at the Training Institutions in Hanoi : Science and Education Publishing. [online] Pubs.sciepub.com. Available at: https://pubs.sciepub.com/education/6/5/23/figure/2 [Accessed 15 Aug. 2018].

Weerasinghe, I.S. and Fernando, R.L., 2017. Students’ Satisfaction in Higher Education.

Wicklund, R.A. and Brehm, J.W., 2013. Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. Psychology Press.

Wilkins, S. and Huisman, J., 2015. Factors affecting university image formation among prospective higher education students: The case of international branch campuses. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), pp.1256-1272.

Yusoff, M., McLeay, F. and Woodruffe-Burton, H., 2015. Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), pp.86-104.