چکیده (انگلیسی):

The fundamental thrust of consistency theories is to enforce equilibrium among one’s cognitions. Man seeks
haemostatic states among his cognitive elements or avoids conflicting stimuli. He loves the familiar; the
unfamiliar is always discomforting and disturbing though common knowledge tells us that actual behaviour turns
what seems novel at the pre-decision stage into familiar following series of learning and experience. The
Heider’s balance theory, Osgood’s congruity model and Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory are the three
popular schools of thought that provide the foundational theories of cognitive consistency This paper critically
analyzed and synthesized the major theoretical and empirical body of knowledge of these schools with a view to
proffering a tripartite approach (involving the consumers, the organizations and the governments) to solving
inconsistency among cognitive elements (e.g.; values, beliefs, knowledge and attitudes). These schools were
specifically looked into and assessed in terms of their individual real world application and/or empirical fertility.
Each represents an improvement upon the other with Festinger’s theory providing the most elaborate perspective
of emphasizing on psychological tension and means of achieving consistency within and between the cognitive
system and ultimately overt and covert behaviours.