As for this state of mental tension caused when confronted with contradicting cognitions; when pre-existing sentiment is challenged by incontrovertible evidence to the contrary which results in rationalizing (ad hoc), i.e., myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience which reinforces the already existing worldview, the following might be interesting.
Resistance to evidence which exposes or threatens a person's philosophy is well known to behavioural science. We do not give up our convictions easily, we somehow fear to have them challenged. We find it very difficult to accept evidence when it is opposed to our basic beliefs. In other words: primary cognitions of the emotional thinker confronted with unassailable secondary cognitions results in cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance is a mental state of tension which occurs when primary cognitions are confronted with indisputably contradicting secondary cognitions, by what they infer, rendering the primary cognitions no longer maintainable. Cognitions confirming primary cognitons is thus 'friend', cognitions contradicting primary cognitions is therefore 'foe'.
Since the emotional thinker feels compelled to nullify 'new' secondary cognitions in conflict with 'old' primary cognitions - meant to somehow maintain them in order to do away with the unpleasant (mental) tension caused by what the contradicting 'new' secondary cognitons infer - the emotionalist will rationalize the 'old' primary cognitions although they can no longer be maintained rationally due to what the contradicting 'new' secondary cognitions undeniably reveal.
In order to assimilate inconsistent information to an existing worldview anyway, the emotional thinker will increase the number of consistent cognitions, thereby 'reducing' the dissonance. This involves rationalizing, i.e., myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience which reinforces an existing worldview (the Ad Hoc 'Rescue'). Or, the offending inconsistent cognitions are dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus on extant consistent cognitions.
It is called "rationalizing" because the emotionalist seeks out semi-logical and ill-logical conclusions using extant and even newly created (thereby consistant) cognitions through prevarication and such in order to find a way to invalidate the inconsistent cognitions. This, of course, is intellectually dishonest when done wittingly and when done 'unwittingly', the result of conditioning - habit, conviction, believe and so on. Either way, they are expressions, consciously and subconsciously, of the dogmatic refusal to face up to (the possibility of) being mistaken/wrong.
Again, learned behaviour really.
Believing 'your' opinion is right is mere confidence
Believing 'your' opinion is fact is sheer arrogance