| Course | INHE 1003 Introduction to Psychology |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Case application |
| Length | About 760 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Integrative Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for INHE 1003 Week 6
"My Grandfather Smoked Into His Nineties": A Case Application of Cognitive Dissonance to a Composite Young Adult Who Vapes Twice a Day and Agrees It Harms the Lungs, Reading Three Moves in the Conversation as Three Ways of Reducing the Discomfort
Student Name
Walden University
INHE 1003: Introduction to Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
"My Grandfather Smoked Into His Nineties": A Case Application of Cognitive Dissonance to a Composite Young Adult Who Vapes Twice a Day and Agrees It Harms the Lungs, Reading Three Moves in the Conversation as Three Ways of Reducing the Discomfort
The Scenario
A composite 24-year-old vapes each morning and each evening. In a conversation with a health coach, they agree that vaping harms the lungs. A few minutes later they say that the research on vaping is "still out," that their grandfather smoked cigarettes into his nineties, and that two vapes a day is "not really a habit." They have no plan to stop.
Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger (1957) proposed that people feel discomfort when they hold two beliefs, or a belief and a behavior, that conflict, and that this discomfort creates pressure to reduce the conflict. He called the discomfort cognitive dissonance. According to the theory, people can reduce dissonance in several ways: by changing the behavior, by changing one of the conflicting beliefs, by adding new beliefs that make the conflict seem smaller, or by reducing the importance of the conflict. The course textbook presents the theory as one explanation for why people sometimes defend behaviors they know are risky (Spielman et al., 2020).
In this scenario, the conflict is between the belief "vaping harms the lungs" and the behavior "I vape twice a day." The person has agreed to the first and continues the second, which is the situation the theory says produces discomfort.
Three Ways of Reducing the Conflict
The first move is doubting the evidence. When the person says the research is "still out," they weaken the belief that vaping harms the lungs. If the evidence is uncertain, the conflict between the belief and the behavior shrinks. This is changing one of the conflicting cognitions.
The second move is adding a reassuring belief. The grandfather who smoked into his nineties is a new piece of information that makes the conflict seem less serious. It does not deny that vaping is harmful, but it suggests that harm is not certain, at least not for people like them. This is adding a consonant cognition.
The third move is shrinking the behavior. By calling two vapes a day "not really a habit," the person reduces how much of the risky behavior they see themselves as doing, which makes the conflict smaller. This is reducing the importance or size of the dissonant element.
None of the three moves changes the behavior itself, which, according to the theory, would also reduce dissonance but is often the hardest option. McMaster and Lee (1991) applied the theory to tobacco smokers, examining how smokers' beliefs about risk relate to their continued smoking, which is the same kind of conflict this case shows in a newer form.
What the Theory Predicts
The theory predicts that the more the person is confronted with evidence of harm, the more strongly they may defend these reassuring beliefs, unless the conflict becomes too large to manage this way. It also predicts that if the person does stop vaping, their beliefs about its risks may shift to match, because the conflict would then run the other way.
What This Suggests for the Coach
For a health coach, the analysis suggests that arguing with each reassuring belief, for example by explaining that one grandfather is not evidence, may lead the person to defend the beliefs more firmly. A more useful approach might be to let the person notice the conflict themselves, for example by asking how they feel about vaping when they hear themselves say it harms their lungs, and to explore what a smaller step, such as dropping the morning vape, would mean to them.
Why the Theory Fits Better Than Simple Ignorance
An alternative explanation is that the person simply does not know the risks. The scenario argues against it: the person agreed, a few minutes earlier, that vaping harms the lungs. Knowledge is present; what changes is how the person handles the conflict between that knowledge and the habit. That is the situation dissonance theory was built to explain, and it is why giving more information alone is unlikely to change the behavior.
Limits
Dissonance is a state inferred from what people say and do, not observed directly. The person's statements could also reflect genuine uncertainty about research on vaping, which is newer than research on smoking, rather than a defensive reaction. The analysis offers the theory as one way of reading the conversation, not as a diagnosis of the person's thinking.
References
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
McMaster, C., & Lee, C. (1991). Cognitive dissonance in tobacco smokers. Addictive Behaviors, 16(5), 349-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(91)90028-G
Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/details/books/psychology-2e
Reading the INHE 1003 Week 6 instructions
For Week 6, apply cognitive dissonance theory to a case in about three pages. Restate the scenario briefly, keeping only the details your analysis will use. Define cognitive dissonance accurately, with its source, including the ways the theory says people reduce it. Then identify each move in the scenario that reduces dissonance and name which method it represents. Say what the theory predicts will happen next. Draw out a practical lesson for someone trying to help the person. Close with the limits of your reading, including alternative explanations. Support the analysis with the textbook and with research on dissonance and a health behavior.
Inside the INHE 1003 Week 6 example
The vaping paper restates the scenario in one paragraph. The theory section explains Festinger's account and lists the ways dissonance can be reduced, with the textbook's framing. The analysis takes the three moves in turn: "still out" weakens a conflicting belief, the grandfather adds a reassuring belief and "not really a habit" shrinks the behavior. McMaster and Lee's work on smokers links the case to earlier research. A section explains why ignorance is a weaker explanation, since the person already agreed vaping is harmful. The prediction, a coaching lesson about letting the person notice the conflict and a limits section on genuine uncertainty close the paper. Each move is quoted before it is labeled, which keeps the analysis tied to the person's words.
INHE 1003 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks
The mapping of each move to a method of reducing dissonance carries the most weight; a grader confirms that each move is identified precisely and labeled correctly. The definition must be accurate, including the methods of reduction. Predictions should follow from the theory. The practical lesson earns credit when it uses the analysis to suggest an approach that avoids strengthening the defenses. Considering alternative explanations shows care. Applications that describe dissonance in general without analyzing each move, confuse dissonance with lack of knowledge, or skip the limits fall into the middle range. A short scenario earns credit too, since it leaves room for analysis rather than retelling.
INHE 1003 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write down exactly what the person in the scenario says, in order. Then identify the belief and the behavior that conflict. For each later statement, ask whether it weakens the belief, adds a new belief or shrinks the behavior. Check your labels against the theory's methods of reduction. Think about what would happen if someone argued with each statement. Then consider whether the person might simply be uncertain rather than defensive. A brief scenario leaves space for the analysis. Quote each statement before labeling it, so a reader can check your reading against the words. A tutor can review your labels, and the vaping paper on this page maps all three moves.
Get a INHE 1003 Week 6 example written to your instructions
The scenario is the whole assignment here, so paste it word for word alongside the prompt and grading criteria. Within 24 to 48 hours a case application reads that scenario and no other, free for a first sample. Facts your case leaves out stay out, and any gap in it is named rather than filled.
More INHE 1003 papers and BS in Integrative Health samples
- INHE 1003 Week 1: Discussion Post
- INHE 1003 Week 2: Concept Application
- INHE 1003 Week 3: Article Summary
- INHE 1003 Week 4: Comparison Table
- INHE 1003 Week 5: Discussion Post
- INHE 1003 Week 7: Study Critique
- INHE 1003 Week 8: Applied Brief
- INHE 1003 Week 9: Annotated Source List
- INHE 1003 Week 10: Short Paper
- INHE 1003 Week 11: Reflection
- INHE 1005 Week 6: Boundary Rule Post
- INHE 2001 Week 6: Construct Comparison Post
- INHE 4009 Week 6: Generalization Post
- INHE 2002 Week 6: Declining the Answer Post
INHE 1003 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free INHE 1003 Week 6 sample paper?
The vaping case application can be read in full above.
What is cognitive dissonance in the INHE 1003 Week 6 sample?
The discomfort of holding a belief and a behavior that conflict, which creates pressure to reduce the conflict.
What are the three moves?
Doubting the evidence, adding a reassuring belief and shrinking the behavior.
Why isn't the person simply uninformed?
They already agreed that vaping harms the lungs.
What does the paper advise a coach?
Letting the person notice the conflict instead of arguing with each reassuring belief.