When the Book about When Prophecy Fails Fails: The Lies Promoted by the Originator of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

In graduate school, one of my professors required our class to read a “classic” social psychology text, When Prophecy Fails. The book is based on the account of Dorothy Martin, who in 1954 predicted a world-ending flood that would result in her group’s rescue by flying saucers. But that’s not the interesting part. The interesting part is what we now know about the book’s authors and the study as a whole, but I will get to that in the second half of the post. 

The Origins of the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

You may not have heard of When Prophecy Fails, but you likely have heard of the famous term and theory, cognitive dissonance. The book served as the foundation for the theory. Published in 1956 by three psychologists, Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter, the authors did not simply follow Dorothy Martin’s bizarre prediction story, but they built a theory upon this one example (yes, deriving a theory from an n of one). In a recent article for The Journal of the History of the Sciences, Thomas Kelly summarized their approach:

The authors predicted that when believers were deeply invested in a world view that had social support, believers would maintain their beliefs even when actual events disproved their world view. In fact, Festinger, Riecken and Schachter (hereafter FRS) argued that true believers would double down on their false beliefs and try to reassure themselves of their beliefs’ veracity by proselytizing their beliefs to others. FRS claimed this is exactly what the UFO cultists did- a perfect example of a new psychological theory: cognitive dissonance.

Of course, like every social scientist, there was an agenda behind the research and theory. In this case, the agenda was an anti-Christian one. As Kelly notes, “FRS implied that the evangelistic fervor of the early Christians could be explained by the messianic claims of Jesus of Nazareth being falsified by his crucifixion and the resulting cognitive dissonance of his disappointed followers, driving them to attempt to spread their now falsified beliefs.”

In this respect, Festinger was following in the steps of his Russian-immigrant father. He recounted regarding his father, “I grew up in a thoroughly atheistic home. From early childhood, my father pointed out the inconsistencies in religion, the absence of any evidence to support beliefs in a god, the irrationality and uselessness of such beliefs… His atheism was thoroughgoing and intolerant; it was intellectual but also emotional.” Festinger was successful in spreading the atheist gospel with his theory. It was taken up by numerous scholars to explain early Christian growth (see the citations in Kelly). In addition, the account would go on to inspire a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, Imaginary Friends.

At the time of my reading, I thought the authors failed to make a good case that one could and should apply conclusions from this particular case study to Christianity. It is not as if the believers in this worldwide flood then went on to travel the world, suffer persecution, and then die for defending their false views.

Festinger would go on to use these results to argue for the theory of cognitive dissonance. In fact, his famous work setting forth the theory, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, would be published a year later.

The Rest of the Story

This past November, Thomas Kelly’s article, entitled “Debunking When Prophecy Fails,” appeared. Kelly’s article reveals that the con job pulled by the three authors of When Prophecy Fails provides a case study in academic deception and misconduct. It was only after the main author died and the box containing the transcripts, telephone logs, research notes, channeled messages, and internal communications among the researchers was unsealed that we learned the authors themselves had concocted a lie. Of course, they received lots of accolades for it. 

Evidence of problems with the story should have been apparent from the fact that four different studies of groups making failed prophecies failed to replicate FRS’s findings (see the sources in Kelly). In fact, these other studies found common features among such groups. Once the prophecies went unfulfilled, the groups experienced decreased conviction, enthusiasm, and proselytism, resulting in a reduction of their size.

Kelly notes that in reality, this is also what happened to the group studied by FRS: “Because the truth is that the FRS account is largely false. The group actively proselytized before the prophecy failed. Afterward, the prophecy was quickly abandoned. The cult leader recanted. The group dissolved.”

For example, Kelly provides evidence that the central couple, Charles and Lillian Laughead, who promoted Martin’s beliefs, had consistently sought publishing and evangelistic opportunities before the failed prophecy. Former Christian medical missionaries, they had been active in recruiting others, such as local high school students, to the UFO cause. Charles, a physician who worked at the Michigan State University health center, actually lost his job due to his UFO proselytizing before the failed prophecy. 

In addition, as Kelly notes, “Even though Martin publicly walked back her belief in the prophecy in a magazine article in 1955, When Prophecy Fails, which was published in 1956, FRS portrayed Martin as remaining completely committed.” Regarding the Laugheads, he found, “there is no record of them trying to spread belief in the failed prophecy despite ample opportunity to spread such a message to receptive audiences.” All of these things, the research team knew, but they distorted in their retelling to make the data fit their theory. 

One finds this progression even after the publication of When Prophecy Fails. In the book Kelly relates, “FRS reports that of the 33 people attending meetings in East Lansing, only eight were heavily committed, seven were somewhat doubtful, and eighteen ‘can hardly be called members’ with beliefs ranging from partial acceptance to ‘almost complete skepticism’ (1956, p. 76).” Yet, later in his Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Festinger would write, that Martin’s group “numbering twenty-five to thirty persons, believed completely in the validity of these messages (p. 252).”

FRS clearly had a theory they wanted to prove, and they altered their evidence to confirm it. In fact, Kelly provides numerous examples in which the study authors played a participant role in the group, far beyond that of a neutral observer. They even interfered with a child-welfare investigation regarding the Laugheads’ children. Kelly concludes, “Reappraisal should be swift. Every major claim of the book is false, and the researchers’ notes leave no option but to conclude the misrepresentations were intentional.” When Prophecy Fails failed to uphold basic scholarly standards.

There is a reason why I believe every social scientist and scientist should be required to take a course covering the history of their discipline. What they will find in a well-taught history course is not only wondrous stories about the discovery of God’s creation, but also that social science and science can be anything but rational and “scientific.” The history will also be filled with fallen humans who have fabricated all sorts of things. Of course, the fabricators do not then engage in truth-proclaiming efforts that lead them to suffering and death. Instead, their lie-proclaiming efforts usually lead to fame, comfort, and fortune. Christians know the truth is often uncomfortable and costly. Proclaiming that Christ is risen was and continues to be costly.