Why People Stay in Evangelical Spaces
Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Last week I had the pleasure of participating in a webinar in which Robert P. Jones, President and Founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, interviewed NPR’s Sarah McCammon about her new book The Exvangelicals.
It will not surprise anyone who knows me that I asked a contrary question when we got to the Q&A time. After all the conversation about the things that had become a bridge too far for exvangelicals, I asked, “What does this research tells us about people who remain in evangelical spaces?”
I admit it wasn’t a fair question. This wasn’t the point of the interview. But it still nagged at me. If those who are “deconstructing”1 have done so because their felt cognitive dissonance was too great, does that mean that those who remain don’t feel cognitive dissonance? How do they avoid that?
The question drove me back to the work of social psychologist Leon Festinger nearly 70 years ago. His 1957 book, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, lays out an idea that has obviously become part of our common lexicon. The year before, Festinger and his colleagues Henry Riecken and Stanley Schachter had written When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World, a study of a UFO cult in 1954. This group had said that the earth would be destroyed by earthquakes and floods but that they would be rescued by aliens.2
I’ll focus primarily on the theory book and use illustrations from the prophecy book along the way. Festinger writes:
The presence of dissonance gives rise to pressures to reduce or eliminate the dissonance. The strength of the pressures to reduce the dissonance is a function of the magnitude of the dissonance. In other words, dissonance acts in the same way as a state of drive or need or tension. (18)
He says that dissonance will only be felt if both cognitive elements are highly relevant to the individual. Otherwise, one would simply disregard the less relevant item.
If dissonance occurs between behavior and environment, one would have to choose. Change the behavior or leave the environment. However, that’s not always possible.
It is clear that in order to eliminate a dissonance completely, some cognitive elements must be changed. It is also clear that this is not always possible. But even if it is impossible to eliminate a dissonance, it is possible to reduce the total magnitude of dissonance by adding new cognitive elements. (21)
Creating this new cognitive element to resolve the dissonance is dependent upon having others who would agree with the new interpretation. He writes:
[T]he seeking of support and the seeking of new information mus tbe done in a highly selective manner. A person would initiate discussion with someone he thought would agree with the new cognitive element but would avoid discussion with someone would might agree with the element he was trying to change. (30)
When Prophecy Fails contrast two groups of UFO followers; one in Evanston and one in Lansing. There is a big difference between the two groups in social cohesion. The Evanston group was much closer to each other and provided a mutual support network. The Lansing group quietly drifted away following “the disconfirmation”.
What was the new element introduced among the Evanston group? It was because their willingness to go to the press with their prophecy showed such deep commitment that God had granted a reprieve.
In [Evanston], on the other hand, most of the members were in the constant presence of fellow believers during the period following disconfirmation. The [Evanston] people, who had social support, were able to accept the rationalization, thus reducing dissonance somewhat, and they regained confidence in their original beliefs. The presence of supporting co-believers would seem an indispensable requirement for recovery from such extreme disconfirmation. (163)
With that as background, I think I can begin to wrestle with the question I posed to Robbie and Sarah. I’ll focus for now on three elements: 1) the relevance of dissonant elements, 2) the addition of new cognitive elements, and 3) social cohesion.
First, it may simply be the case that many evangelicals are unaware of issues outside their sphere of influence or if they are, see them as something outsiders worry about. I’m reminded of people over the years who have said, “just tell me what the Bible says” so they don’t have to wrestle with difficult conflicts.
Ryan Burge’s SubStack today examines evangelical support for Republican candidates over the years. His conclusion is that white evangelicals ARE Republicans and will always vote in line with that.3 So even if they are reminded of scriptures about welcoming immigrants, those simply are not core issues to them. This allows them to simply ignore the elements that don’t fit their preconceptions. No dissonance will be felt. Similarly, if they don’t have any personal connection to gay or trans people and rely mostly on what they see on social media or Fox News, they don’t have to engage any dissonance.
Second, new cognitive elements can be introduced. Consider the difficulty of addressing sexual abuse in the church. Victims who come forward are not only disregarded, but are seen as attacking the ministry. Perhaps they are agents of satan trying to harm the mission of the congregation.
A particularly egregious example of this involved Jules Woodson in 2018. A former youth pastor, Andy Savage, had sexually abused Jules when she was 17. When the news came out, Savage, then an associate in Highpoint Church in Tennessee, was invited to confess to the congregation. When he did, the congregation responded with a standing ovation. Why? Because the belief that “all are sinners” and that “God forgives” became the dominant cognitive elements. The dissonance was not only resolved, but the abuse seemed to take a back seat to the bravery of confession.
Third, evangelicals exhibit high levels of cohesion within the congregation. It is not uncommon to see people organize their social lives around church and church people.4 Historically, evangelicals have had much higher attendance rates than other religious groups (although that is falling according to the new PRRI data). The thought of leaving those connections because of a cognitive element may be too painful. Far better to adopt one of the other strategies to eliminate dissonance if it means one can stay in fellowship.
For exvangelicals, the cost of staying is too great. Many of them may feel the loss of fellowship with friends and family as real pain. But that pain is nowhere near what they experience by remaining in a constant state of cognitive dissonance.
For those who remain, I think that it will be harder and harder to maintain distance from dissonance. Ideally, the church would provide mechanisms for people to work through their dissonance and retain their faith. I wish I could be more optimistic that this was going to happen.
As I’m writing this, I received this announcement from Eerdmans, my publisher, about a webinar celebrating four new books they are putting out on deconstruction.
They had predicted the cataclysm for December 21st, 1954. I’ve always loved that the front page of the Chicago Tribune on the 22nd included a small blurb, “World still here”.
I presented at the Calvin Henry Symposium in 2017 with the title, “Surprise, Evangelicals are Republicans!”
I think it’s an open question whether this still works in megachurches.
Cognitive dissonance, low level or not, definitely helps explain some of those who remain. Thanks John.