Cognitive dissonanceIn 1959, the theory of cognitive dissonance was introduced in an attempt to explain the discomfort one feels when one has two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values . It is a blend of cognition and motivation and, as Elliot Aronson tried to explain, "it is essentially a theory of sense-making: how people try to make sense of their environment and their behavior, and thus try to lead a life sensible and significant." ”, (Aronson, 304). Aronson is a firm believer in cognitive dissonance theory and believes it has revitalized social psychology as a whole. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Whenever you experience dissonance between your held beliefs, you try to reduce that dissonance to make sense of your decision making. A main idea presented by Aronson was what specifically leads someone to perform dissonance-reducing behaviors. He said it happens when one is startled, made to feel stupid, or made to feel guilty (Aronson, 305). An example he gave is where a basketball player shoots twelve free throws during a game when he normally shoots 40%. Aronson said he would feel a little uncomfortable about his inability to evaluate such a good performance and perhaps wonder why he doesn't usually perform so well. Another main idea he presents is that the theory encompasses and simplifies many different theories that try to combine cognition and motivation (such as self-affirmation and self-discrepancy theories). He agrees that theories add something important but questions whether or not having many smaller theories favors the scientific development of psychology. In contrast to Elliot Aronson, Barry Schlenker is not convinced that the theory of cognitive dissonance is as suitable as it claims to be. One reason he gives for this belief is that there is no way to determine, at any given time, which sets of possible cognitions are relevant during a particular situation. Therefore, we cannot determine which pairs are consistent, inconsistent, or irrelevant, creating room for disagreement (Schlenker, 342). Another statement of Schlenker's is one that attacks the claim made by Aronson that the theory has the capacity to subsume many 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 demonstrate what dissonance actually is. I found Schlenker's point of view more convincing than Aronson's. Part of this may be because he was able to directly attack/refute Aronson's particular points that he made, such as the theory having the ability to encompass that of many. Whatever the reason, Schlenker still made extremely valid points about why he is right. As he explained, there are too many possible explanations that can contribute to the dissonance. An example given by Schlenker is: “Because consonant cognitions like 'I told the lie because the experimenter asked me to' or 'I am helping science by telling the lie' should not eliminate any dissonance that might.