Cognitive Dissonance in Schools: Why Evidence-Based Interventions Fail

As I sat on the final train from Sheffield to Gatwick Airport on my way to Slovenia, I found time to reflect. The train I was on had come to a steady halt 20 minutes into my journey, and a voice came over the tannoy explaining that due to a signalling problem the train would now terminate. I got off the train and looked for a member of staff, but they all seemed to have disappeared, perhaps avoiding a train full of frustrated passengers.

This moment of frustration made me think about decision-making under uncertainty, which led me to reflect on cognitive dissonance the mental discomfort experienced when someone holds two contradictory beliefs. In this case, I justified my choice of Gatwick over Stansted while simultaneously questioning it. The only true way to know which decision was better would have been a randomized controlled trial (RCT), where another me left the house at exactly the same time but took the alternative route.

Cognitive Dissonance in Schools

Cognitive dissonance is not limited to travel choices. In schools, it profoundly impacts decision-making, especially in behaviour management and leadership. Leaders and teachers may continue practices that are ineffective or even harmful simply because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”

For example, a few years ago, I ran a small-scale study in a large secondary school. The school had implemented post-incident learning sessions instead of detentions. The study confirmed that this approach was far more effective than detentions in improving student behaviour. Teachers reported a more positive school ethos, and an RCT confirmed these results.

Yet, six weeks later, the post-incident learning structure was scrapped, and detentions were reintroduced. When asked why, staff explained: “The school was not ready for the intervention and they don’t feel it is right for the pupils.” This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance even with clear evidence of success, leadership reverted to tradition.

Historical Examples of Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance isn’t new in education or social programs. In 1978, seventeen teenagers participated in the Scared Straight program, intended to deter youth from crime by exposing them to intense prison environments. Initial reports suggested the program was a success, but a later RCT by James Finckenauer revealed it actually increased the likelihood of reoffending. Despite this, many advocates refused to acknowledge the evidence.

This mirrors what often happens in schools: interventions backed by data may be rejected due to beliefs, habits, or fear of change. In essence, cognitive dissonance acts as a barrier to progress.

Read: NIJ study on juvenile intervention programs

Why Evidence-Based Interventions Fail

• Evidence-based interventions often fail in schools for several reasons:

Resistance to Change:

• Staff may feel uncomfortable adopting new methods that challenge long-standing practices.

Confirmation Bias:

• Teachers and leaders tend to focus on data that confirms their existing beliefs rather than the whole evidence.

Institutional Inertia

• Schools are complex organizations where traditions are deeply embedded.

For instance, detentions remain widely used even though research shows alternative approaches like restorative practices or post-incident learning produce better outcomes. Behaviour Smart’s Post-Incident Learning is one tool that helps schools implement evidence-based interventions effectively.

Overcoming Cognitive Dissonance in Schools

Leaders can take several steps to minimize the effects of cognitive dissonance and implement successful interventions:

Prioritize Evidence Over Tradition:

• Always base decisions on data, RCTs, and proven research rather than habit. Resources like the Education Endowment Foundation provide guidance for evaluating interventions.

Encourage Reflection and Debate:

• Provide staff with opportunities to discuss why an intervention works and how it aligns with student needs.

Start Small and Scale:

• Trial new approaches in one class or year group before full implementation.

Document Successes:

• Capture improvements in student behaviour and wellbeing to reinforce the intervention’s effectiveness.

Promote a Culture of Learning:

• Encourage staff to view mistakes as opportunities, not failures, to reduce fear-driven resistance.

Why “That’s How We’ve Always Done It” Is Harmful

Relying on tradition can stifle innovation and harm students. It prevents the adoption of strategies that could improve behaviour, enhance wellbeing, and increase engagement. Schools that embrace evidence-based interventions, supported by tools like Behaviour Smart, can create positive environments where both students and staff thrive.

As researchers often say, we learn more from mistakes than from successes, but only if we are willing to acknowledge the evidence and act on it. Cognitive dissonance is like a virus in decision-making it blocks improvements and prevents schools from reaching their full potential.

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance is a real and pervasive barrier in schools, often causing leaders to revert to traditional practices despite strong evidence supporting new interventions. By understanding this psychological phenomenon and prioritizing evidence-based strategies, schools can:

• Improve student behaviour

• Foster a more positive school culture

• Maximize learning time

• Build trust and engagement among staff and students

To truly improve educational outcomes, we must challenge the mindset of “that’s how we’ve always done it” and embrace a culture of reflection, evidence, and innovation.