Cognitive Dissonance
Attitude and Behavior
PSY/400
Team A
University of Phoenix

Attitude and Behavior

Ernie works in a planning office of a government research and development organization based in Los Angeles, California. As a government employee, he is bound to strictly follow the civil service rules such as attendance and punctuality, among other official government policies. Hence, any government worker who values punctuality should clock in on time and work eight hours a day, five days a week. If punctuality is deeply rooted in you as a government employee, then it is part of your system to be on time. In Ernie’s case, punctuality does not matter. As such, he is habitually late and reports to the office three times a week on the average. Yet, his co-employees and peers do not mind it at all. What is socially normal is viewed as the controlling individual of one’s individual behavior; social norms can be moral, social or legal and can often be very vague. More recently a lot of interest has been focused to the circumstances that norms will be adhered to (Bicchieri, Muldoon, 2014).
Why?
Despite his habitual tardiness, Ernie might be considered a competent employee. He is bright, reliable, efficient and a prolific researcher and writer. His technical expertise is beyond doubt, having graduated Magna Cum Laude in college and completed with distinction doctorate degree in economics from a top university in California. He has conducted numerous researches and has several publications to his name. He is also part of a technical panel that evaluates research proposals and he often serves as resource person on the subject matter of his expertise. Give these; his tardiness is not an issue to his officemates at all. In fact, they think Ernie is an asset to the agency given his qualification, competence and contribution to the body of knowledge in economics through his publications.
Ernie holds a senior position in the office and is the best friend of his boss. The boss understands his work ethics and heavily relies on him in achieving the end goals, plans and programs of the office. This could be one reason the boss has been keeping silent about Ernie’s behavior.

Employees in other departments, however, had taken notice of his tardiness and one group had formally asked the Human Resources (HR) Officer to look into the matter. Unknown to Ernie and his boss, the HR and legal departments conducted a formal investigation by reviewing his daily time records. After the investigation, Human Resources Officer recommended to the agency’s Executive Director Ernie’s dismissal from government service and correspondingly issues a reprimand on his boss for not being keen on Ernie’s office attendance. The recommendation letter cited violation of civil service ruling on attendance and punctuality and the corresponding punishment for such behavior. However, instead of dismissal, the Executive Director opted for a two- month suspension after weighing in the role Ernie plays in the office and in the whole organization. Obviously, the Executive Director does not want to destroy Ernie’s career based on the issue of attendance and punctuality alone. Cognitive dissonance implies that in a setting that contains conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. There are emotional states of anxiety that are produced which tend to change individual attitudes, beliefs or behaviors in order relive the anxiety and restore a sense of balance (McLeod, 2008).

Upon receipt of the suspension order, Ernie and his boss immediately arranged for a meeting with the Executive Director and the HR and legal officers. During the meeting, the boss cited Ernie’s exemplary performance and that his tardiness is not a deterrent for accomplishing his official duties and responsibilities. However, the legal officer cited that a rule is a rule and Ernie’s persistent behavior on punctuality has its corresponding sanction which is dismissal. The officer, however, was prevailed upon by the Executive Director.
But why is he always late?
Ernie says that no matter how much he tries, it is difficult for him do any work-related activity with relative ease in the morning. He is more inspired and productive starting three or four in the afternoon when his co-employees are starting to wrap up their tasks for the day. Moreover, he should be home before six in the evening and therefore he has to bring his office assignments to work on until late at night. He attributes his tardiness to waking up late. There are times he would simply email his outputs to his boss and call in sick so he could catch on his sleep. He knows that tardiness is against office rules, yet he could not break the habit given that it has become part of his system to be more productive in the afternoon till late at night.
But why care about the rules?
While Ernie knows he is breaking an office policy, his attitude towards punctuality is that is not an important measure of employee competence and career advancement. For him, it does not matter if he comes late for work because he still is able to complete his tasks on schedule. Moreover, his outputs are usually rated excellent by his boss and peers. This attitude has greatly influenced his behavior over punctuality and office attendance. Thus, he reports to work late in the morning without the feeling the guilt of not adhering to the office rule. He knows he is competent and can be relied upon in contributing to the mission and goals of the whole organization. He also feels he has an edge over his co- employees due to his technical expertise and educational attainment. So why care over the rules on attendance and punctuality?

What’s next for Ernie?
Clearly, there is dissonance created by his attitude and behavior towards rules on punctuality. He knows that habitual tardiness is against the rules yet he continues to do it. And he is being penalized for such a behavior. With a two-month suspension chasing him, and a promotion that could be placed in jeopardy, he has to do find solution to this internal struggle within him. First, he has to recognize that he needs to change this behavior if he plans to stay in the office for long. Second, he has to resolve the internal conflict rooted in his system and this is his inability to start work in the morning and staying up late at night to accomplish his assignment - the very reason he has become habitually tardy. He knows he needs to exert an extra effort to make the necessary adjustments and that he has to start now. There are complicated interactions between attitudes and behavior that become even more complex when combined with social settings. Conduct may often be swayed by issues in addition to individual attitude, trough ones assumptions, economics and how friends react to individual conduct Festinger, L. (1957). Finally, Ernie has to make an appeal to the Executive Director for reconsideration of the suspension order as this would reflect on his official service records and may stifle his ambition to climb the ladder of success. He is looking forward to career advancement next year. He sees himself replacing his boss who will soon retire from government service. Although highly intelligent, this is the only time that reality hit him. He is bound by civil service rules hence the call for behavioral change should start now. He loves what he is doing and he wants to stay on.

Conclusion
The negative attitude towards certain rule or standard can result to a negative behavior towards that rule or standard as the case study shows. Moreover, there is always a tendency to rationalize such behavior by making attribution from something or some events in order to protect self-esteem and justify the negative behavior. Knowing that the behavior is against the rule and yet it is still being violated produces dissonance that needs to be resolved. Eliminating the dissonance may then yield some positive results. .

References
Bicchieri, Cristina and Muldoon, Ryan, "Social Norms", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/social-norms
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance, Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson.
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Cognitive Dissonance. Retrieved from: http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
Attitude and Behavior - Changing attitudes to change behavior, Changing behavior to
Influence attitudes. Retrieve from: http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/52/Attitude- Behavior.html