Cognitive DissonanceIn 1959, the theory of cognitive dissonance was introduced in an attempt to explain the discomfort one experiences when we have two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas or values. It's a mix of cognition and motivation, and as Elliot Aronson tried to explain: "It's essentially a theory about sensemaking: how people try to make sense of their environments and to their behavior, and thus try to lead a sensible and meaningful life. ”, (Aronson, 304). Aronson is a firm believer in cognitive dissonance theory and believes that it has revitalized social psychology as a whole. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Whenever one notices a dissonance between the beliefs held, one tries to reduce this dissonance in order to make sense of one's decision-making. One of the main ideas presented by Aronson was what in particular leads someone to engage in dissonance-reducing behavior. He said this happens when one is amazed, feels stupid, or feels guilty (Aronson, 305). One example he gave was of a basketball player who makes twelve free throws in a game when he normally shoots at 40%. Aronson said he would feel some discomfort over his inability to rate such a good performance and perhaps wonder why he doesn't usually perform as well. Another main idea he presented was that the theory encompasses and simplifies many different theories that attempt to combine cognition and motivation (such as self-affirmation and self-difference theories). He agrees that the theories add something important but questions whether or not having a large number of smaller theories furthers the scientific development of psychology. Unlike Elliot Aronson, Barry Schlenker is not convinced that the theory of cognitive dissonance is so appropriate. as he claims to be. One of the reasons he gives for this belief is that there is no way to determine, at any given time, which sets of possible cognitions are relevant in a particular situation. Therefore, we cannot determine which pairs are consistent, inconsistent, or irrelevant, thereby creating space for disagreement (Schlenker, 342). Another claim by Schlenker attacks Aronson's claim that the theory has the capacity to encompass several other smaller theories. He says: “[It] must change form to incorporate the central propositions of each of these other theories. Dissonance does not subsume others, it becomes others. When all variations are taken into account, dissonance theory can explain all social behavior, but only after the fact” (Schlenker, 344). In simpler terms, Schlenker believes that although the theory provides a good basis for a link between cognition and motivation, the theory is too broad and there is no way to prove what dissonance actually is. I found Schlenker's view more compelling than Aronson's. This might be partly because he was able to directly attack/refute particular points of Aronson's that he had put forward, such as the theory having the capacity to encompass that of many. Whatever the reason, Schlenker still made some extremely valid points as to why he is right. As he explained, there are too many possible explanations that can contribute to the dissonance. An example given by Schlenker.