Public Choice

, Volume 82, Issue 1–2, pp 37–51 | Cite as

The political economy of dissonance

  • Gordon L. Brady
  • J. R. Clark
  • William L. Davis


Cognitive dissonance is defined as the psychological discomfort or annoyance that may exist when an individual's choice is not consistent with his values and beliefs. Dissonance may cause an individual to reconsider his values and beliefs, enter new choices with different parameters, respond to the constraints imposed, or change his individual preference function. This paper extends Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance to the work of public choice theorists and seeks to explain the incentives of the iron triangle to foment and quell dissonance. Examples are provided for specific environmental and health and safety risks.

Akerlof and Dickens (1983) used cognitive dissonance to justify public sector intervention as necessary to correct what they perceived as a market failure in the choice of safety equipment by workers in hazardeus industries. Unlike Akerlof and Dickens (1983), we argue that the concept of cognitive dissonance is applicable to the analysis of public sector decisions giving rise to government failure as well as private decisions involving possible market failure. This paper views the public sector as a market-like arrangement in which dissonance may be produced and exchanged like any other commodity. Cognitive dissonance provides a useful framework for examining individual choice and also expands our understanding of the unseen elements of rent-seeking.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott, A. and Brady, G. (1991). The political economy of statutory deadlines.CATO Journal 10 (Winter): 703–713.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, D. (1954). Conflict and integration.Journal of Personality 22: 548–566.Google Scholar
  3. Akerlof, G. and Dickens, W. (1983). The economic consequences of cognitive dissonance.The American Economic Review 72: 307–317.Google Scholar
  4. Axsom, D. (1989). Cognitive dissonance and behavior change in psychotherapy.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25(3): 234–252.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, T. (1990). Free market environmentalism: The only option. Bozeman, MT: Political Economical Research Center Reports: 8.Google Scholar
  6. Bagby, R., Parker, J. and Bury, A. (1990). A comparative citation analysis of attribution theory and the theory of cognitive dissonance.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16(2): 274–283.Google Scholar
  7. Barzel, Y. and Silberberg, E. (1973). Is the act of voting rational?Public Choice 16: 51–58.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, J.T. (1990). Health research charities: Image and reality. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Capital Research Center.Google Scholar
  9. Bliese, J. (1990). The motives of the first crusaders: A social psychological analysis.Journal of Psychohistory 17(4): 393–411.Google Scholar
  10. Brady, G.L. (1991). The 1992 united nations conference on environment and development.International Freedom Review 4(3): 37–58.Google Scholar
  11. Brady, G.L., Maloney, M.T. and Abbott, A.F. (1990). Political limits of the market for bat medallions.Regulation 13(1) Winter: 61–64.Google Scholar
  12. Brady, G.L. and Marlow, M.L. (1991). The political economy of endangered species management: The case of elephants.Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice 1(1991): 29–39.Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, J.M. (1969).Cost and choice, an inquiry in economic theory. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, W.L. and Clark, J.R. (1991). Dissonance: A model of choice influenced costs. University of Tennessee. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, W.L. and Clark, J.R. (1991). Dissonance and economic development. University of Tennessee. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  16. Donovan, R. and Jackson, B, (1990). Deciding to divorce: A process guided by social exchange, attachment, and cognitive dissonance theories.Journal of Divorce 13(4): 23–35.Google Scholar
  17. Downs, A. (1957).An economic theory of democracy. NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  18. Ferejohn, J. and Fiorina, M. (1974). The paradox of not voting: A decision theoretic analysis.American Political Science Review 68: 525–536.Google Scholar
  19. Festinger, L. (1957).A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goetz, C.J. (1991). Uncommon common-sense versus conventional wisdom. The Virginia School of Economics George Mason University 7th Annual Lecture in Political Economy, 1–16.Google Scholar
  21. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1984). Regret theory and information — a reply.Economic Journal 94: 649–650.Google Scholar
  22. Loomes, G. and Sugden, R. (1987). Some implications of a more general-form of regret theory.Journal of Economic Theory 41(2): 270–287.Google Scholar
  23. Loomes, G., Starmer, C. and Sugden, R. (1992). Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods.Econometrica 59(2): 425–439.Google Scholar
  24. McCormick, R.E. and Tollison, R.D. (1981).Politicians, legislation, and the economy: An inquiry into the interest-group theory of government. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, D., Burton, B., Geisen, M., Topping, J. and Reagan, C. (1990). Ecological dissonance theory and criterion validity of the Hooper equal opportunity measure.Psychological Reports 66: 1155–1158.Google Scholar
  26. Perlin, M. (1990). Morality and pretextuality, psychiatry and law: Ordinary common sense, heuristic reasoning, and cognitive dissonance.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 19(2): 131–150.Google Scholar
  27. Ray, D.L. (1990).Trashing the planet, 31–141. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.Google Scholar
  28. Reagan, D. and Kilduff, M, (1988). Optimism about elections: Dissonance reduction at the ballot box. Political Psychology 9(1): 101–107.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers, J. (1992). Dissonance and Christian formation.Journal of Psychology and Christianity 11(1): 5–13.Google Scholar
  30. Rowley, C.K., Tollison, R.D. and Tullock, G. (Eds.) (1988).The political economy of rentseeking. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  31. Savage, L.J. (1972). The foundations of statistics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  32. Stephens, S.V. (1975). The paradox of not voting: Comment.The American Political Science Review 69: 914–915.Google Scholar
  33. Stevick, R., Martin, K. and Showalter, L. (1991). Importance of decision and postdecision dissonance: A return to the racetrack.Psychological Reports 69: 420–422.Google Scholar
  34. Tullock, G. (1959). Problems of majority voting.Journal of Political Economy 67: 551–579.Google Scholar
  35. Tullock, G. (1965).The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tullock, G. (1967).Toward a mathematics of politics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tullock, G. (1971). The charity of the uncharitable.Western Economic Journal 9: 379–392.Google Scholar
  38. Tullock, G. and Brady, G.L. (1992). The risks of crying wolf. In J. Cairns Jr., B.R. Niederlehner and D.R. Orvos (Eds.),Predicting ecosystem risk. Princeton: Princeton Scientific.Google Scholar
  39. Twight, C. (1988). Government manipulation of constitutional-level transaction costs: A general theory of transaction-cost augmentation and the growth of government.Public Choice 56(2): 131–152.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon L. Brady
    • 1
  • J. R. Clark
    • 2
  • William L. Davis
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental StudiesSweet Briar CollegeSweet Briar
  2. 2.Probasco Chair of Free EnterpriseThe University of Tennesee at ChattanoogaChattanooga
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsThe University of Tennesee, MartinMartin

Personalised recommendations