Cognitive Dissonance Resolution Strategies After Exposure to Corporate Violence Scenarios

This study uses cognitive dissonance as a theoretical avenue to identify factors that might hinder the public’s acceptance of incontrovertible facts about corporate violence (i.e., the calculated endangerment of civilians, workers, and customers). Three hundred and twenty-seven participants answered a survey that measured their (1) support for capitalism, (2) level of nationalism, (3) socio-demographic characteristics, and (3) attitudes toward three scenarios describing corporate violence cases. These attitudes comprised participants’ (a) acceptance of the scenarios as true, (b) perceived seriousness of the cases presented to them, and (c) support for several statements made to justify the companies’ actions. Results of statistical analyses suggest that subjects who scored higher on the nationalism and pro-capitalism scales were less likely to rate the cases as serious, and more inclined to rationalize the corporations’ actions. These findings imply that myth adherence might lead business supporters and nationalists to reject inconvenient truths relative to crimes of the powerful, which would then undermine the effect of increased awareness on prosecutorial efforts against corporate crime in the U.S.