“I thought you didn’t love me anymore.” “You don’t listen to me.” “I’m not happy. I haven’t been happy for years.” “Our marriage hasn’t been good for a long time.” “We don’t have anything in common anymore.”
The statements above are just a few of the justifications, rationalizations and excuses that cheaters use for their infidelity. However, the cheater virtually never realizes this until much later – if ever.
These statements are often big lies built on tiny grains of truth which allows the cheater to blame their actions on someone, or something else – usually the betrayed spouse or the marriage itself. By doing this, it helps them to control their internal conflict they may be experiencing.
Unfortunately, the result is a rewriting of the marital history which subsequently causes the betrayed to question what was ever true in the past and manages to make them feel responsible for their partner’s infidelity.
The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the uncomfortable feeling that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the conflict. Something has to give.
A common example of this cognitive dissonance theory is present in most people who smoke. Most would wonder why anyone would be a smoker these days, given what we know about the link between smoking and cancer and lung disease. Well, most smokers know that smoking causes cancer and/or lung disease, but might rationalize it by saying “I don’t smoke very much” or “I’m only a social smoker.” Or “My grandfather smoked two packs a day and lived to be 95 years old!” By coming up with these rationalizations, smokers are able to preserve the impression that their behaviors and attitudes are consistent.
Most people believe that they are moral and good. They also believe cheating on a partner is wrong. How can they be moral and good and also cheat at the same time? How to they reconcile this in their own minds?
In short, cheaters know that infidelity is wrong, but they still do it. And when they do, most will usually feel pretty bad about it. They find it difficult to take responsibility for their own bad behavior because it conflicts with their self-concept. But through various forms of cognitive manipulations, they are able to discount their indiscretions to feel better about themselves. Since they feel better about themselves, they may continue in their affair and could possibly then be susceptible to cheating again in the future if they don’t learn from their mistakes.
I’m convinced that cognitive dissonance was the driving factor for my own rationalizations and excuses for infidelity. I believed I was a good and honest person. However, good and honest people do not cheat on their spouses and lie. Therefore, I must have had good reasons for doing so. Now what is really messed up is that that Linda then started to think, “I must have somehow caused him to act this way. It had to be my fault. He was justified.”
The article on cognitive dissonance below provides more insight into cognitive dissonance and might also provide some understanding for why some cheaters cling to the affair and the affair partner, despite their inner conflict.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)
By Elliot Aronson, social psychologist; professor emeritus, psychology, University of California Santa Cruz & co-author, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)
Cognitive Dissonance: The Engine of Self-justification
It’s fascinating, and sometimes funny, to read doomsday predictions, but it’s even more fascinating to watch what happens to the reasoning of true believers when the prediction flops and the world keeps muddling along. Notice that hardly anyone ever says, “I blew it! I can’t believe how stupid I was to believe that nonsense”? On the contrary, most of the time they become even more deeply convinced of their powers of prediction. The people who believe that the Bible’s book of Revelation or the writings of the sixteenth-century self-proclaimed prophet Nostradamus have predicted every disaster from the bubonic plague to 9/11 cling to their convictions, unfazed by the small problem that their vague and murky predictions were intelligible only after the event occurred.
Half a century ago, a young social psychologist named Leon Festinger and two associates infiltrated a group of people who believed the world would end on December 21. They wanted to know what would happen to the group when (they hoped!) the prophecy failed. The group’s leader, whom the researchers called Marian Keech, promised that the faithful would be picked up by a flying saucer and elevated to safety at midnight on December 20. Many of her followers quit their jobs, gave away their homes, and dispersed their savings, waiting for the end. Who needs money in outer space? Others waited in fear or resignation in their homes. (Mrs. Keech’s own husband, a nonbeliever, went to bed early and slept soundly through the night as his wife and her followers prayed in the living room.) Festinger made his own prediction: The believers who had not made a strong commitment to the prophecy—who awaited the end of the world by themselves at home, hoping they weren’t going to die at midnight—would quietly lose their faith in Mrs. Keech. But those who had given away their possessions and were waiting with the others for the spaceship would increase their belief in her mystical abilities. In fact, they would now do everything they could to get others to join them.
At midnight, with no sign of a spaceship in the yard, the group felt a little nervous. By 2 a.m., they were getting seriously worried. At 4:45 a.m., Mrs. Keech had a new vision: The world had been spared, she said, because of the impressive faith of her little band. “And mighty is the word of God,” she told her followers, “and by his word have ye been saved—for from the mouth of death have ye been delivered and at no time has there been such a force loosed upon the Earth. Not since the beginning of time upon this Earth has there been such a force of Good and light as now floods this room.”
The group’s mood shifted from despair to exhilaration. Many of the group’s members, who had not felt the need to proselytize before December 21, began calling the press to report the miracle, and soon they were out on the streets, buttonholing passersby, trying to convert them. Mrs. Keech’s prediction had failed, but not Leon Festinger’s.
The engine that drives self-justification, the energy that produces the need to justify our actions and decisions — especially the wrong ones — is an unpleasant feeling that Festinger called “cognitive dissonance.” Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent, such as “Smoking is a dumb thing to do because it could kill me” and “I smoke two packs a day.” Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don’t rest easy until they find a way to reduce it. In this example, the most direct way for a smoker to reduce dissonance is by quitting. But if she has tried to quit and failed, now she must reduce dissonance by convincing herself that smoking isn’t really so harmful, or that smoking is worth the risk because it helps her relax or prevents her from gaining weight (and after all, obesity is a health risk, too), and so on. Most smokers manage to reduce dissonance in many such ingenious, if self-deluding, ways.
Dissonance is disquieting because to hold two ideas that contradict each other is to flirt with absurdity and, as Albert Camus observed, we humans are creatures who spend our lives trying to convince ourselves that our existence is not absurd. At the heart of it, Festinger’s theory is about how people strive to make sense out of contradictory ideas and lead lives that are, at least in their own minds, consistent and meaningful. The theory inspired more than 3,000 experiments that, taken together, have transformed psychologists’ understanding of how the human mind works. Cognitive dissonance has even escaped academia and entered popular culture. The term is everywhere. The two of us have heard it in TV newscasts, political columns, magazine articles, bumper stickers, even on a soap opera. Alex Trebek used it on Jeopardy, Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, and President Bartlet on The West Wing. Although the expression has been thrown around a lot, few people fully understand its meaning or appreciate its enormous motivational power.
In 1956, one of us (Elliot) arrived at Stanford University as a graduate student in psychology. Festinger had arrived that same year as a young professor, and they immediately began working together, designing experiments to test and expand dissonance theory. Their thinking challenged many notions that were gospel in psychology and among the general public, such as the behaviorist’s view that people do things primarily for the rewards they bring, the economist’s view that human beings generally make rational decisions, and the psychoanalyst’s view that acting aggressively gets rid of aggressive impulses.
Consider how dissonance theory challenged behaviorism. At the time, most scientific psychologists were convinced that people’s actions are governed by reward and punishment. It is certainly true that if you feed a rat at the end of a maze, he will learn the maze faster than if you don’t feed him; if you give your dog a biscuit when she gives you her paw, she will learn that trick faster than if you sit around hoping she will do it on her own. Conversely, if you punish your pup when you catch her peeing on the carpet, she will soon stop doing it. Behaviorists further argued that anything that was merely associated with reward would become more attractive — your puppy will like you because you give her biscuits — and anything associated with pain would become noxious and undesirable.
Behavioral laws do apply to human beings, too, of course; no one would stay in a boring job without pay, and if you give your toddler a cookie to stop him from having a tantrum, you have taught him to have another tantrum when he wants a cookie. But, for better or worse, the human mind is more complex than the brain of a rat or a puppy. A dog may appear contrite for having been caught peeing on the carpet, but she will not try to think up justifications for her misbehavior. Humans think; and because we think, dissonance theory demonstrated that our behavior transcends the effects of rewards and punishments and often contradicts them.
For example, Elliot predicted that if people go through a great deal of pain, discomfort, effort, or embarrassment to get something, they will be happier with that “something” than if it came to them easily. For behaviorists, this was a preposterous prediction. Why would people like anything associated with pain? But for Elliot, the answer was obvious: self-justification. The cognition that I am a sensible, competent person is dissonant with the cognition that I went through a painful procedure to achieve something — say, joining a group that turned out to be boring and worthless. Therefore, I would distort my perceptions of the group in a positive direction, trying to find good things about them and ignoring the downside.
Despite what the unfaithful partners (and Ashley Madison) often think, affairs resolve nothing. They do not improve the marriage, nor do they address any problems that might be present in that marriage. Rather, they are destructive and do nothing but cause pain and problems for all involved parties – and the cheater is clearly aware of this.
When the cheater is confronted with the, “How could you?”question, they often respond, “I don’t know.” To the betrayed spouse, that answer is usually seen as nothing more than an infuriating cop-out – yet even the most remorseful and open cheater may respond in the same way because they simply do not have an explanation for their conflicting choices.
33 replies to "“How Could You?” – The Psychology of Justifications, Rationalizations and Excuses for Infidelity"