Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

64 Chapter 2
need a theory that explains the association. Theories are good ideas about
how things work.
One of my favorite good ideas about how things work is called cognitive
dissonance theory (Festinger 1957). It’s based on the insight that: (1) People
can tell when their beliefs about what ought to be don’t match their perception
of how things really are; and (2) This causes an uncomfortable feeling. The
feeling is called cognitive dissonance. People then have a choice: They can
live with the dissonance (be uncomfortable); change the external reality (fight
city hall); or change their beliefs (usually the path of least resistance, but not
necessarily the easy way out).
Cognitive dissonance theory helps explain why some people accept new
technologies that they initially reject out of fear for their jobs: Once a technology
is entrenched, and there is no chance of getting rid of it, it’s easier to
change your ideas about what’s good and what’s bad than it is to live with
dissonance (Bernard and Pelto 1987). Dissonance theory explains why some
men change their beliefs about women working outside the home: When economic
necessity drives women into the workforce, it’s painful to hold onto the
idea that that’s the wrong thing for women to do.
On the other hand, some people do actually quit their jobs rather than accept
new technologies, and some men continue to argue against women working
outside the home, even when those men depend on their wives’ income to
make ends meet. This is an example of a general theory that fails to predict
local phenomena. It leads us to seek more data and more understanding to
predict when cognitive dissonance theory is insufficient as an explanation.
The literature is filled with good ideas for how to explain covariations.
There is a well-known correlation between average daily temperature and the
number of violent crimes reported to police (Anderson 1989; Cohn 1990). The
association between temperature and violence, however, is neither as direct
nor as simple as the correlational evidence might make it appear. Routine
activity theory states that if you want to understand what people are doing,
start with what they usually do. Social contact theory states that if you want
to understand the probability for any event that involves human interaction,
start by mapping activities that place people in contact with one another. Both
of these theories are examples of Ockham’s famous razor, discussed above.
Well, following routine activity theory, we find out that people are likely to
be indoors, working, or going to school in air-conditioned comfort, during the
hottest part of the day from Monday through Friday. Following social contact
theory, we find that on very hot days, people are more likely to go out during
the evening hours—which places them in more contact with one another. People
also drink more alcohol during the evening hours. These facts, not temperature
per se, may account for violence. Applying these theories, Cohn and