Organizational studies based on different conceptual perspectives also use the term coherence with a weak agreement in its meaning (Garcia & Ruiz, 2007 Ramos & Jordao, 2013 Heggena & Terumb, 2013). Everyone uses it without a theoretical background providing meaning and scope. Different researchers in psychology support some theoretical explanations appealing to concepts of incoherence, discrepancy, inconsistency, or dissonance (Swann, 1983 Higgins, 1987 Swann, Griffin, Predmore, & Gaines, 1987 Higgins 1987). There is an evidently scarce consensus about its meaning.

Several implications are outlined for theory development and useful applications in management and organizational design and change.Ĭoherence deserves consideration in psychology because a formal conceptualization and theorizing are lacking, even though several authors refer to it as part of their reasoning or explanations.

After putting forward a formal definition of Coherence Judgment, the author argues whether coherence is a feature of reality, as some authors propose, or mainly a cognitive process, and also whether psychology needs a coherence Judgment concept. On the other hand, incoherence may trigger dissonance, which in turn motivates the search for coherence. Coherence judgment, as a particular cognitive process, allows the subject to decide about the way to reduce or remove dissonance, and then to verify the effect achieved. The author argues that cognitive dissonance motivates the search for coherence, as a means to get rid of dissonance. After examining the meaning of coherence in several disciplines in psychology, this writing introduces the concept of Coherence Judgment. This paper argues that coherence is something about which cognitive dissonance theory is concerned but not explored.

Theory logical coherence evaluation