The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance isn't as complicated as it sounds. Indeed, the theory is so simple and its application so common that we use it everyday to shape the way we understand ourselves and interpret the world around us. First proposed in 1957 by the University of Californian social psychologist, Professor Leon Festinger, it was popularized by his protégé, Dr. Elliot Aronson. The psychological process explains why we can make hundreds of decisions each day yet regret few of them.

The theory is easily summarized. If an uncomfortable feeling or stress is caused by simultaneously holding two contradictory ideas (cognitions), then people will strive to reduce the discomfort (dissonance) by modifying an existing belief or by rejecting one of the two conflicting ideas.

Here is an example. A group of people believes that the end of the world will arrive on a given date. When the appointed day arrives but the world does not end, they are left with a number of possible responses. Some members may abandon their apocalyptic belief system entirely, admit that they were wrong and end their association with the group. Some may keep their belief, accept that the end did come but in a different form than they expected ‹ maybe it's slow and gradual rather than dramatic and sudden. And some may keep their belief system but ascribe the wrong prediction to a miscalculation that they will recompute to a future date.

Dr. Aronson argues that we use this process of rationalizations to reconcile ourselves to conflicts we encounter. Then, once we choose an option, we construct an elaborate framework to convince ourselves that our choice was correct – even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This explains the reluctance of officials in a legal system to acknowledge the innocence of a person who was convicted of crimes but was subsequently exonerated. The officials believe in the legal system and they believe they are good people acting in accordance with it. The dissonance created by the collision between their beliefs and the exonerating evidence challenges their self-esteem and makes them extremely reluctant to accept the demonstrated innocence.

Now, apply the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance to the environmental problems challenging us today. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that we are confronting a number of serious problems – global warming, acidification of the oceans, species depletion, habitat destruction, population growth, food shortages, etc.... The situation creates discomfort because it is threatening. And the implication is that people are to blame. But most people believe themselves to be good, honest and well-intentioned. The co-existence of conflicting ideas (cognitions) creates a stress or discomfort (dissonance) that we try to reduce.

One option for reducing this dissonance is to change our idea of ourselves by diminishing our sense of importance: we are only one of many species on the planet; the Earth was here before we came and it will be here long after we are gone; we as individuals can't make any significant difference – even though our belief system happens to venerate the power of the individual.

We can also reduce the dissonance by emphasizing self-confidence: we are the planet's dominant species so we get what we want; we are smart enough to invent technologies that will save us; humanity will survive because we are incredibly adaptable.

We can also reduce dissonance by retreating to our religious beliefs: Armageddon and the Day of Judgment are inevitable; the purpose of an ephemeral life is to get to an eternal Heaven; belief will bring salvation from God.

Another option is to change the image of ourselves by accepting that we have been too self-interested and self-serving, that our behaviour must be more compliant with nature's ecosystems. We can do this in many ways: endorse conservation policies, recycle, support the creation of parks and preserves, bicycle, travel less, buy a smaller car, turn down the thermostat, purchase local and organic food, eat less meat, and otherwise become more environmentally responsible citizens.

Yet another option for reducing dissonance is to discredit the evidence that is in conflict with our beliefs: the science is flawed, the studies are inconclusive, contrary findings are not being considered, the scientists are biased, the research is only opinion, the climate models are inaccurate, the weather anomalies are not statistically valid, the data defies common sense, science has been wrong before, the concern is a panicky over-reaction. We can even reduce dissonance and absolve ourselves of all responsibility by claiming that our environmental problems are due to unusual solar activity or the Earth's orbital irregularities.

The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance describes how we try to reduce discomfort by choosing the reality that creates the least anxiety. Facts and objectivity are not necessarily our choices of preference. Indeed, evidence can be optional if it doesn't concur with our comfort. And once we find this comfort, then we tenaciously hold on to it – even in the face of overwhelming, opposing evidence.

We each play this risky game. Denial and avoidance are its common strategies of evasion. And, as our environmental problems proliferate, so do the rationalizations that make threatening situations even more dangerous.