For the past few decades, there has been a growing alliance between the US Republican Party and Christian fundamentalists. The Republicans have adopted Christian issues like abortion and same-sex marriage (until now) and the Christian right has adopted political positions like small government and lower taxes. In both cases, these stances are not intrinsic to the belief systems of the respective groups. Christians use political language to explain their support for keeping the minimum wage low (and the poor, poor), for example. Republicans use religious language to explain their willingness step into the bedrooms of the nation (as with Virginia’s law’s against anal and oral sex).

They do this because both are taking positions contrary to their natural interest. (Of course, many of the individuals involved belong to both groups. I don’t think that invalidates my point, and if it troubles you, think of the positions taken by the leadership of each group, rather than the membership.)

How do they sustain this level of dissonant behaviour, and even dissonant belief? As I suggested at the top, the two groups are in alliance. They never sat down and signed a treaty, but it evolved over time, and has been mutually beneficial. So here is a large part of the answer: significant material benefit, and especially power, will push people toward – and satisfy them with – actions and beliefs they would otherwise either reject or simply not take up.

I am not claiming that Republican or fundamentalist Christians are any more susceptible to this sort of influence. It seems to me to be pretty universal.

The second part of the answer is likely that once this dissonant activity and belief is taken up by elites (politicians and clergy, who are the principal beneficiaries), it is easier for the laity to sign on, and perhaps an act of even greater and more painful dissonance to reject their leaders and friends.

The real trick in many of the dissonance studies was that the researchers had to get everyone agree to the behavior that would be the source of dissonance. If some people opted out, then the study would become invalid, since there would be a self-selection process going on. Not only that, but dissonance is less powerful (if at all) when the dissonant choice isn’t freely chosen, so they had not only to get everyone to agree, but to feel like they did so of their own volition.

I’d be curious, in the Zappos example Michael mentioned, whether the $4000 was chosen at random, or carefully calibrated to be a sum that seems substantial, but also one at which nobody (or the very few, least committed) decided to quit.