Arousal misattribution and attitude change: a replication of Croyle and Cooper

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Running head: AROUSAL MISSATRIBUTION AND ATTITUDE CHANGE 1

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTION OF TERTIARY EDUCATION

«NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS»

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

Master's Program «Applied Social Psychology»

Arousal Misattribution and Attitude Change: A Replication of Croyle and Cooper

Dolgov Pavel

Supervisor PhD in Psychology,

University Docent Willem Sleegers

Moscow, 2019



Abstract

dissonance physiological arousal feeling

Cognitive Dissonance Theory suggests that cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual experiences an inconsistency between two or more cognitive elements (Festinger, 1957). This inconsistency leads to an uncomfortable psychological aversive state. Croyle and Cooper (1983) attempted to investigate the physiological nature of uncomfortable feeling caused by cognitive dissonance. They found evidence that cognitive dissonance is indeed accompanied by an increase in skin electrical activity. However, they did not find typical change in attitudes caused by dissonance when arousal was measured. They assumed that it happened because of the misattribution of arousal to the measurement device. In the current study we attempted to replicate Croyle and Cooper's findings that misattribution of arousal caused by dissonance to the measurement device can prevent attitude change. The sample of 107 students from Tilburg University took part in our experiment. In our study we found no evidence for the classical effect of cognitive dissonance on attitude change. Moreover, we found no evidence that recording situation can prevent typical attitude change caused by cognitive dissonance.

Keywords: cognitive dissonance, attribution, attitude change, skin electrical activity, Bayesian statistics.



Cognitive dissonance and physiological arousal

According to Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT), cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual experiences an inconsistency between two or more cognitive elements (Festinger, 1957; Croyle & Cooper, 1983; Losch & Cacioppo, 1990; Jonas et al., 2014). Festinger (1957) argued that two or more items of knowledge that are relevant to each other but are not psychologically consistent between each other could lead to a feeling of dissonance - an uncomfortable psychological aversive state. For instance, if an individual wants to be fit, and she eats a high-fat cupcake, she would experience dissonance. According to CDT, experiencing dissonance motivates people to undertake a set of actions to reduce the inconsistency and associated dissonance.

State of aversive arousal is a crucial component of CDT. Consequently, researchers have attempted to measure the physiological nature of the aversive state caused by cognitive dissonance. One notable set of studies comes from Croyle and Cooper (1983), who in a series of experiments show that dissonance is indeed accompanied by physiological arousal.

In their first experiment, they measured the students' attitude towards the ban of drinking alcohol in campus and found the students held negative attitudes towards the ban. Next, they tested whether induced compliance paradigm - experimental paradigm that is used to trigger cognitive dissonance by asking a person to do something that is counter to his or her beliefs or attitudes - is effective in producing dissonance induced attitude change. The amount of dissonance experienced by a person is inversely related to the amount of external pressure for behaving in that way. Therefore, if a person thinks that she is forced to behave in a counterattitudinal manner, she experiences less of dissonance than if she thinks that behaving in a counterattitudinal manner is her free choice (Harmon-Jones, 2012). Croyle and Cooper asked students to write an essay in favor of the ban on drinking alcohol on campus. Due to writing an essay in favor of the ban being inconsistent with the students' true attitudes, they were assumed to experience dissonance. Croyle and Cooper found that when participants thought they voluntary agreed to write a counterattitudinal essay, they showed more attitude change than participants who thought they were forced to do so.

In the second experiment, Croyle and Cooper attempted to measure the physiological nature of psychological arousal associated with cognitive dissonance. They recorded participants' skin electrical activity - a measure shown to be related to general arousal, while performing counterattitudinal behavior. They found that cognitive dissonance was accompanied by an increase in skin electrical activity. However, importantly, in the second experiment no attitude change was found.

Dissonance and compensatory behaviors

Croyle and Cooper found that in the presence of measurement device, participants showed no attitude change. Authors assumed that attitude change did not happen because participants attributed their aversive arousal to the skin conductance measurement procedure. Attitude change is typically regarded as a specific form of compensatory mechanisms aimed to reduce the aversive arousal. However, the relationship between arousal and compensatory behaviors such as attitude change is still a heavily debated topic. In fact, CDT has been integrated into various models on inconsistency compensation such as the Meaning Maintenance Model (Proulx & Inzlicht, 2012) and the General Process Model of Threat and Defense (Jonas et al., 2014). These models see cognitive dissonance as one instance of violation of individual's meaning framework which leads to various compensatory mechanisms in order to restore psychological consistency.

These integrative theories also presuppose a crucial role of arousal in producing compensatory behaviors. For instance, the General Process Model of Threat and Defense states that following an inconsistency, an individual first experiences various symptoms like hypervigilance, anxious arousal, avoidance motivation, and inhibition of all ongoing behaviors (Jonas et al, 2014), and after these performs a set of actions to reduce these symptoms.

Compensatory mechanisms caused by cognitive dissonance need accurate attribution of aversive arousal to the inconsistency between cognitive elements. If aversive arousal is attributed to some other factors, compensatory mechanisms do not work. This was demonstrated by Zanna and Cooper (1974) in their research on the attribution approach of arousal properties of dissonance. Authors tried to investigate how attribution of aversive arousal caused by cognitive dissonance can influence the following compensatory mechanisms (attitude change). In their research, they used induced compliance procedure and asked participants to write a counterattitudinal essay. Prior to writing an essay, participants were given different pills, aimed to create the feeling of relaxation, tension or a pill without any effect.

The authors found that when participants took the pill that was aimed to create a feeling of tension, they showed no attitude change. The authors interpreted those findings as if the attribution of aversive arousal caused by dissonance to the pill did not lead to compensatory behaviors aimed to reduce this feeling. When accurate attribution of aversive arousal to inconsistency between one's beliefs and actions did not happen, it did not lead to compensatory behaviors.

The absence of attitude change in Croyle and Cooper research might similarly be explained by misattribution of aversive state to an external source. Moreover, a set of further investigations successfully demonstrated that aversive arousal caused by dissonance could lead to attitude change even in the presence of skin conductance measurement device (Elkin, & Leippe, 1986; Losch, & Cacioppo, 1990).

Elkin and Leippe (1986) as well as Losch and Cacioppo (1990) in their investigations used skin conductance to measure the influence of cognitive dissonance on the electrical activity of the skin (Elkin & Leippe, 1986; Losch & Cacioppo, 1990). They found that cognitive dissonance is accompanied by an increase in skin conductance and is followed by a change in attitudes. Basically, they had similar procedure as Croyle and Cooper in their research, but with some differences in the design. Croyle and Cooper attempted to attenuate the misattribution of aversive arousal to the measurement situation by saying participants that the initial tension they had from being attached to the recorder was gone. However, this measure backfired in their study. Elkin and Leippe decided not to tell participants about the possible tension of being attached to the recorder. They assumed that this measure would attenuate the attribution of aversive arousal to measurement procedure. The fact that aversive arousal could lead to attitude change even in presence of recording device lends support for the idea that accurate attribution of dissonance to the inconsistency between cognitive elements is a crucial component of cognitive dissonance.

One reason for this scant empirical evidence may be Croyle and Cooper's finding that dissonance induced arousal could be attributed to recording procedure are in line with General Process Model of Threat and Defense. Their experiment demonstrated that arousal could lead to reaction of attributing this arousal to external stimuli in order to reduce the feeling of uncomfortable psychological aversive state.

However, we cannot rely on Croyle and Cooper's study that this is the case because of several limitations of their research. First, in their experiment the sample size was small, with only 10 participants per cell and 30 participants in total. Small sample size may lead to finding a significant effect by chance (Type 2 error). We think that replicating Croyle and Cooper's study with bigger sample is necessary for getting more reliable results. Secondly, their research suffers from the lack of experimental control since they did the first and the second studies not at the same time. They also recruited participants from the same dormitories in both studies. Thus, it could have resulted in the fact that participants in the second experiment already knew about the purpose and the procedure of the experiment. That is why we believe that all the parts of an experiment should be conducted together.

For these reasons, we think it is necessary to first replicate Croyle and Cooper's findings before concluding that misattribution is indeed plausible. Thus, we conducted an experiment using the same methodology as in original Croyle and Cooper's (1983) research. First, we used induced compliance procedure to see if cognitive dissonance is followed by attitude change. Second, we used skin conductance measurement device to see if an attribution of arousal caused by dissonance to measurement situation could prevent the attitude change. Since we were only interested in indicating the link between correct attribution of aversive arousal and following compensatory behaviors, we did not measure participants skin electrical activity. Although the measurement device was not functional, we attempted measures to make participants think that it worked properly. We hoped to see that misattribution may indeed play a role in a relationship between aversive arousal caused by the dissonance and change of attitudes.

Method

Design

In the current study, we rely on the induced compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance. This paradigm is used to create the feeling of dissonance by asking a person to do something that is contrary to her beliefs or attitudes. The amount of dissonance a person experiences depends on the amount of external pressure that this person perceives to perform the counterattitudinal behavior. If a person thinks that she is forced to perform counterattitudinal behavior (low-choice), she would not experience much of dissonance. Whereas if a person is convinced that it is her choice to perform counterattitudinal behavior (high-choice), she experiences more of dissonance.

The current study consists of a 2 (choice freedom) x 2 (skin conductance present/absent) between-subjects experimental design with 4 conditions in total (high/low choice counterattitudinal essay) x (with/without skin conductance).

In both high and low choice conditions participants were asked to write strong and forceful arguments in support of the topic they disagree with. In the high-choice condition, participants were convinced that they were writing an essay completely voluntary and that they could decline to write it without any consequences. Whereas in the low-choice condition, participants were just asked to write strong and forceful arguments in support of resit system change.

In the skin conductance condition participants were attached to a skin conductance measurement device. In our experiment, the skin conductance device was not functional, however it was attached to the laptop of the experimenter and participants were convinced that it was working. The presence of a skin conductance device let us test if the recording situation itself could influence the post-essay attitude change.

After writing counterattitudinal essay participants were asked to measure their agreement with the potential change of resit system. Participants' post-essay attitude towards resit system change was our dependent variable.

After final attitude measure participants filled the Preference for Consistency questionnaire. We used Linear Regression analysis to measure the interaction between participants' willingness to be consistent and their post-essay attitude scores in high and low choice conditions.

Procedure and Materials

After arriving to the laboratory, participants were welcomed and instructed about the nature of the experiment. They were told they would take part in an experiment aimed to measure physiological responses during a variety of mental and attitudinal tasks. They were also told their mental abilities would not be measured. After this, participants were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions: with and without skin conductance. Next, participants took their places in one of the cubicles and were given an informed consent (Appendix A).

After signing an informed consent, participants in the skin conduction condition were informed about skin conductance measurement procedure. They were told: “The skin conductance device measures the electrical activity of your skin. This procedure is absolutely harmless, you can be sure that no shocks will be administered. Although, all participants experience some initial uneasiness associated with the recording situation, most found that they were able to ignore the device once they began working on the assigned tasks. To begin the experiment, we need to attach electrodes to the index and the second fingers of your non-preferred hand, if you are okay with that”.

After attaching electrodes, participants were given a signal to start the experiment. The first task was anagram-solving task (Appendix B). Participants were introduced with 10-item list of scrambled words, and they had 2 minutes to solve them. The following scrambled words were used: "aewtr" (water), "eocvi" (voice), "adtri (triad)", "nrdki" (drink), "ntgia" (giant), "lcoht" (cloth), "tonba" (baton), "awrlb" (brawl), "ypeon" (peony), "ohtnm" (month). After terminating an anagram-solving task, participants had 1-minute resting period. During this 1-minute break, participants in a skin conductance condition were casually asked how they felt and were told: “It seems that the initial tension you had from being hooked up to the recorder is gone now”. This was done in order to attenuate the possible attribution of arousal to the measurement device.

Next, participants had to perform the recollection task. They were given 3 minutes to recall and write down all the activities they have done the day before the experiment. Instructions for recollection task were presented on the computer screen (Appendix C). After finishing the recollection task, participants had 3-minutes of rest.

After the second resting period, participants had to perform an essay task. The topic of the counter-attitudinal essay was determined with a pretest. We conducted an online survey among Tilburg University students to measure their attitudes concerning possible changes in the policy of Tilburg University. Participants were invited to measure their agreement with different items (Appendix H) ranging from 1 - “strongly agree” to 7 - “strongly disagree”. After measuring students' attitudes, we found that participants mostly disagree with the topic: “Students should only be allowed to resit an exam if they failed the first attempt” (M = 5.8, SD = 1.5) (Fig. 1). Thus, we decided to make this topic as a basis for the counterattitudinal essay.

At that point participants were randomly assigned to two experimental conditions: high/low choice counterattitudinal essay (Appendix D; Appendix E). Participants had to write strong and forceful arguments in support of resit system change.

Next, participants had 3-minutes of rest. After last resting period, like in the original Croyle and Cooper's experiment, participants were asked to fill a single item questionnaire measuring their attitudes towards the resit system change (from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 31 = “strongly agree”).

Figure 1 The level of agreement with the topic of counterattitudinal essay

After completing an attitude measure, participants had to indicate how free they felt to refuse to write an essay (from 1 = “Not at all” to 31 = “Very much”). Next, participants had to fill the “Preference for consistency” (Appendix F) questionnaire. Preference for consistency questionnaire (Cialdini, Trost & Newsom, 1995) is an 18-items questionnaire aimed to measure the level of person's trait consistency. Participants were asked to measure their agreement from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree” with a list of questions.

After completing “Preference for consistency” questionnaire, participants answered several demographical questions. After this, the recorder was turned off and electrodes were unplugged. Finally, participants were asked to write down what they thought the study was about. After this, participants were debriefed with a written debriefing (Appendix G). If participants had any questions about an experiment, experimenter answered them and participants were asked not to tell anyone about the true aim of the study to other potential participants, for a period of two weeks.

Data analysis

We analyzed our data in two ways. First, we implemented frequentist Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to measure the differences between post-essay attitudes among four conditions (choice freedom x skin conductance present/absent). Frequentist ANOVA was followed by independent samples t-tests to measure the effects of high/low choice and skin conductance present/absent conditions on post-essay attitude scores separately.

Second, we implemented Bayesian ANOVA, because it allows measuring the probability that the effect obtained in the original Croyle and Cooper's research was not sufficient (support for null-hypothesis). Bayesian ANOVA was also followed by Bayesian independent samples t-tests.

Finally, we conducted Linear Regression analysis to measure the interaction between participants' preference for consistency and their attitudes towards resit system change in high and low choice conditions. For all the statistical tests, we used R version 3.5.0.

Participants

According to Simonsohn et al. (2015), in the replication study in order to have about 80% power to reject the original effect, we need 2.5 times as many observations as in the original study. Simonsohn et al. argue that recruiting 2.5 times the original number of participants results in an 80% power to reject the original effect. In Croyle and Cooper's (1983) study, they had 3 conditions in the first experiment (high-choice counterattitudinal essay, high-choice consonant essay, and low-choice counterattitudinal essay) and the same conditions but with skin conductance measurement procedure in the second experiment, with approximately 10 people per cell. As per the recommendation of Simonsohn et al., we aimed for an initial recruitment approximately 25 people per condition.

We managed to recruit 123 participants - students of Tilburg University. After primary analysis of participants' answers, we had to exclude 6 participants because they failed to write a counterattitudinal essay. Also, we excluded 10 participants because they got a suspicion about the true nature of the experiment. As a result, for the final analysis we had the sample of 107 participants (77.5% females, M_age = 20.4, SD = 2.5).

Results

Manipulation check. Participants in both high and low choice conditions were asked how much choice they perceived declining to write the essay. Participants in a high choice condition indicated to have more choice to decline to write an essay (M = 18.28, SD = 9.37) than participants in a low choice condition (M = 13.94, SD = 8.536). A frequentist independent samples t-test was conducted and revealed a main effect of choice manipulation. There was a significant difference in the manipulation check response for high-choice and low-choice conditions; t(105) = 2.5, p = 0.014. An independent samples Bayesian t-test was conducted, and we found moderate evidence against the null hypothesis (BF?? = 3.201). These results suggest that participants in our research correctly identified the amount of freedom they had to decline to write an essay. Or alternatively: that the manipulation worked.



Table 1

Descriptive statistics for attitude response as a function of skin conductance (present/absent) and choice freedom (high/low)

Skin conductance	n	M	SD	95% CI [LL, UL]
Absent	51	7.76	8.58	[5.35, 10.18]
Present	56	8.55	8.33	[6.32, 10.78]
Choice freedom				95% CI [LL, UL]
high	54	8.37	9.43	[5.80, 10.94]
low	53	7.98	7.33	[5.96, 10.00]

Note. M and SD represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. LL and UL indicate the lower and upper limits of the 95% confidence interval for the mean, respectively. The confidence interval is a plausible range of population means that could have created a sample mean (Cumming, 2014).

Post-essay attitudes. A one-way between subject frequentist ANOVA was conducted to measure the interaction effect of the presence of skin conductance device on attitudes towards resit system change in high and low choice counterattitudinal essay conditions. The results show that an interaction effect of skin conductance and choice freedom on post-essay attitudes was not significant [F(1,103) = 0.364, p = 0.548]. These results suggest that induced compliance to write an essay that contradicts person's beliefs as well as presence or absence of skin conductance device did not influence the attitudes towards resit system change. A one-way between subjects Bayesian ANOVA also showed strong evidence in favor of null-hypothesis (BF?? = 0.015). That means that the interaction effect of skin conductance and choice freedom on attitudes towards resit system change was highly unlikely.

Frequentist independent samples t-test were conducted to gain support for the presence or absence of the effect. The difference in attitudes for high and low choice conditions (Table 1) was not significant; t(105) = 0.283, p = 0.812. The difference in attitudes for skin conductance present and absent (Table 1) was also not significant; t(105) = -0.48, p = 0.631. Bayesian independent samples t-tests also showed that the effects of choice freedom (BF?? = 0.21) as well as skin conductance (BF?? = 0.23) on attitudes are unlikely.

Linear regression was conducted to test if the participants' preference for consistency significantly predicts their post-essay attitude scores in high and low choice conditions. The results of the regression showed that the interaction effect of preference for consistency and choice freedom on post-essay attitude scores was not significant (в = 3.9, p = 0.398). Bayesian Linear Regression also showed that the interaction effect of preference for consistency and choice freedom on post-essay attitudes is highly unlikely (BF?? = 0.006). These results suggest that regardless of how much choice participants had to decline to write a counterattitudinal essay, their willingness to be consistent did not influence their post-essay attitudes.

Discussion

In the current paper, we attempted to replicate the Croyle and Cooper's findings that (1) writing a counterattitudinal essay produces cognitive dissonance and subsequent attitude change, and (2) that uncomfortable feeling caused by dissonance can be attributed to a measurement procedure and does not lead to compensatory behaviors. We did not find the predicted interaction effect between measurement procedure and freedom of choice on post-essay attitude change. We found that induced compliance dissonance manipulation did not lead to classic cognitive dissonance attitude change. Moreover, we found no evidence that the presence of skin conductance measurement device could influence post-essay attitude change. Although participants in our study correctly perceived the amount of freedom, they had to decline to write an essay, dissonance induced attitude change did not happen in all conditions.

In general, our findings are inconsistent with the results of previous investigations of cognitive dissonance. Although the induced compliance manipulation was effective in producing post-essay attitude change in a variety of investigations with different samples (Croyle & Cooper, 1983; Elkin & Leippe, 1986; Cooper, Feldman & Blackman, 2018; Randles et al., 2015; Martinie, Olive, Milland, Joule & Capa, 2013; Zanna & Cooper, 1974; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1957) in our case induced compliance manipulation did not work. Although in a skin conductance condition it could have happened because participants attributed their uncomfortable feeling caused by dissonance to recording situation, in the condition without the skin conductance measure, they also did not change their attitudes.

According to Cognitive Dissonance Theory when an individual holds two or more elements of knowledge that are relevant but not consistent with one another, this individual experiences uncomfortable feeling of dissonance (Festinger, 1957). An individual is motivated by this unpleasant feeling to perform certain behaviors and psychological strategies to reduce the inconsistency and associated discomfort. According to Simon, Greenberg and Brehm (1995) the more cognitive element is resistant to change, the less likely this element will be changed to reduce the dissonance. If a cognitive element is too resistant to change, an individual will not change it, but try to minimize the importance of one of inconsistent cognitive elements (Simon, Greenberg & Brehm, 1995; Joule, & Martinie, 2008; Festinger, 1957; Fointiat, 2011). In our experiment, according to the post-essay attitude measure, most of the participants had negative attitudes towards resit system change. Thus, writing an essay in favor of resit system change was inconsistent with their beliefs and should have led to attitude change. However, the topic of the essay could be too sensitive for the participants since all the participants were students and the change of resit system could influence their own performance in the university and following employment. Therefore, instead of changing their attitudes towards this topic, participants could have trivialized their counterattitudinal behavior in order to reduce dissonance.

In our case, participants could be engaged in self-affirmation, which led to trivialization. According to Simon and colleagues (1995), self-affirmation allows an individual to restore a sense of self-integrity and reduce dissonance through trivialization. Participants in our study could have weakened the importance of their counterattitudinal behavior to reaffirm their sense of self and consequently to reduce dissonance (Simon Greenberg & Brehm, 1995; McGrath, 2017).

Limitations and future studies

In our research, it is unlikely that participants attributed their uncomfortable feeling caused by dissonance to the recording situation. First, like Croyle and Cooper in their research, we managed actions to attenuate the possible attribution of arousal to measurement device. In the beginning of the experiment we told participants that although all the participants experienced some initial uneasiness because of being attached to the recorder, most found that they were able to ignore the recorder once they began working on the assigned tasks. Next, after the anagram-solving task, we told participants that initial tension they had from being attached to the recorder was gone. Although in Croyle and Cooper's research these actions led to an attribution of uncomfortable feeling to the recording situation, in our case could have been effective in attenuating misattribution.

Secondly, the recording situation itself was not that stressful for the participants. When they were asked how they felt after anagram-solving task, participants pointed out that they felt some stress because anagram-solving task was very difficult for them, but not because of the recording situation. Moreover, in many cases when participants were told that the initial tension they had from being attached to the recorder was gone, they were very surprised and replied that they had no tension at all. In addition, several participants said they already had an experience of being attached to the recorder and they were used to the recording situation. However, even if participants attributed their arousal caused by dissonance to the recording situation and did not change their attitudes after writing counterattitudinal essay, we should have observed different situation in a condition without skin conductance. In fact, even in the absence of recording device participants did not change their attitudes after writing counterattitudinal essay.

In the original paper Croyle and Cooper had a pre-experiment survey where they measured the attitudes towards the topic of counterattitudinal essay. In their experiment, they invited those people who participated in the pre-experiment survey. Therefore, they compared attitudes before and after the experiment, pre and post experiment change in attitudes was their dependent variable. In this research, we only measured attitudes towards the topic of counterattitudinal essay after writing the essay. Thus, some of our participants could have had positive attitudes towards resit system change, which in turn could have influenced the size and power of obtained effect.

In future studies on cognitive dissonance, researchers should pay more attention not only to the attitude change as a possible compensatory mechanism to reduce dissonance, but also to other dissonance reduction strategies (trivialization or creating new cognitions). In addition, induced compliance procedure should be used with more caution, since it does not always lead to dissonance induced attitude change.

Implications

Regarding methodological contribution, current study casts some doubt that induced compliance procedure is always effective in producing classical cognitive dissonance effect. Although, in Croyle and Cooper's original paper the same induced compliance procedure with the same instructions resulted in attitude change, in our case it did not.

Regarding theoretical contribution current study lends support that classical cognitive dissonance findings need additional replications, since in the current study we found no evidence for the effect of cognitive dissonance on attitudes. In addition, our study lends support that attitude change is not the only possible mode of cognitive dissonance reduction.

Conclusion

In the current study we attempted to replicate Croyle and Coopers findings that measurement of skin electrical activity itself could interfere with demonstrating the effects of cognitive dissonance. While previous studies argue that an individual wants to be consistent with her actions and usually changes her attitudes to fit her actions, current research lends support that compensatory mechanisms aimed to reduce uncomfortable feeling caused by cognitive dissonance might be different. In fact, we found that measurement situation did not influence post-essay attitude change. Moreover, we found that trivialization but not attitude change could have been plausible dissonance reduction strategy in our case.



References

1. Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(2), 318.

2. Croyle, R. T., & Cooper, J. (1983). Dissonance arousal: Physiological evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(4), 782.

3. Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological science, 25(1), 7-29.

4. Devine, P. G., Tauer, J. M., Barron, K. E., Elliot, A. J., & Vance, K. M. (1999). Moving beyond attitude change in the study of dissonance-related processes. Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology, 297-323.

5. Elkin, R. A., & Leippe, M. R. (1986). Physiological arousal, dissonance, and attitude change: Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a" Don't remind me" effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 55.

6. Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(3), 382.

7. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press.

8. Fointiat, V. (2011). Saying, but not doing: Induced hypocrisy, trivialization, and misattribution. Social behavior and personality: An international journal, 39(4), 465-475.

9. Glasford, D. E., Pratto, F., & Dovidio, J. F. (2008). Intragroup dissonance: Responses to ingroup violation of personal values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1057-1064.

10. Harmon-Jones, E. (2000). Cognitive dissonance and experienced negative affect: Evidence that dissonance increases experienced negative affect even in the absence of aversive consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1490-1501.

11. Harmon?Jones, E., Amodio, D. M., & Harmon?Jones, C. (2009). Action?based model of dissonance: A review, integration, and expansion of conceptions of cognitive conflict. Advances in experimental social psychology, 41, 119-166.

12. Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2012). Cognitive dissonance theory. Handbook of motivation science, 71-83.

13. Jonas, E., McGregor, I., Klackl, J., Agroskin, D., Fritsche, I., Holbrook, C., Nash K., Proulx, T. & Quirin, M. (2014). Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 219-286). Academic Press.

14. Joule, R. V., & Martinie, M. A. (2008). Forced compliance, misattribution and trivialization. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 36(9), 1205-1212.

15. Losch, M. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Cognitive dissonance may enhance sympathetic tonus, but attitudes are changed to reduce negative affect rather than arousal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(4), 289-304.

16. Markman, K. D., Proulx, T. E., & Lindberg, M. J. (2013). The psychology of meaning. American Psychological Association.

17. Martinie, M. A., Olive, T., & Milland, L. (2010). Cognitive dissonance induced by writing a counterattitudinal essay facilitates performance on simple tasks but not on complex tasks that involve working memory. Journal of experimental social psychology, 46(4), 587-594.

18. Martinie, M. A., Olive, T., Milland, L., Joule, R. V., & Capa, R. L. (2013). Evidence that dissonance arousal is initially undifferentiated and only later labeled as negative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 767-770.

19. McGrath, A. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(12).

20. McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2009). Dissonance reduction in the context of group membership: The role of metaconsistency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(2), 103.

21. Proulx, T., & Inzlicht, M. (2012). The five “A” s of meaning maintenance: Finding meaning in the theories of sense-making. Psychological Inquiry, 23(4), 317-335.

22. Randles, D., Inzlicht, M., Proulx, T., Tullett, A. M., & Heine, S. J. (2015). Is dissonance reduction a special case of fluid compensation? Evidence that dissonant cognitions cause compensatory affirmation and abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(5), 697.

23. Robinson, J. L., & Demaree, H. A. (2007). Physiological and cognitive effects of expressive dissonance. Brain and Cognition, 63(1), 70-78.

24. Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995). Trivialization: the forgotten mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(2), 247.

25. Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological science, 26(5), 559-569.

26. Van Veen, V., Krug, M. K., Schooler, J. W., & Carter, C. S. (2009). Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance. Nature neuroscience, 12(11), 1469.

27. Yousaf, O., & Gobet, F. (2013). The emotional and attitudinal consequences of religious hypocrisy: Experimental evidence using a cognitive dissonance paradigm. The Journal of social psychology, 153(6), 667-686.

28. Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: an attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 29(5), 703.



Appendix A

Study: `Attitudes and Cognitive Tasks'

You have been invited to participate in a study of the department of Social Psychology at Tilburg University. This study has been approved by the Ethics Review Board. Before you begin, we kindly ask you to read this form carefully and sign for consent.

We would like to ask you to participate in a study in which we collect information on -insert essay topic here- Will be determined with a pretest.. Regarding this topic, we would like to gather arguments on both sides of the issue. We have found that a good way of doing this is simply to ask people to list all the arguments they can think of that support a particular side of the issue.

Because this survey is part of a research project, we want to remind you that your participation is completely voluntary. We would appreciate your help, but we do want to let you know that it's completely up to you.

[In this study we will also examine the impact of simple mental and physical tasks on electrical activity of the skin. To this end, you will receive two electrodes that will be placed on your index and middle finger, as you complete these tasks. Please note that we will not administer any shocks and that the tasks you are asked to perform will not be used to test your mental ability. Also, although some participants may experience some initial uneasiness associated with the recording situation, most participants find that they are able to ignore the apparatus once they begin working on the assigned tasks.] In case skin conductance is measured.

The study will take about 30 minutes. For your participation you will receive 0.5 participant hour credit, also when you quit the study.

You have the right to decline to participate and withdraw from the research once participation has begun, without any negative consequences, and without providing any explanation.

If you have have any questions, now or during the study, you can contact the test leader and ask your questions.

Your data will be anonymized. There will be no record that links the data collected from you with any personal data from which you could be identified (e.g., your name, address, e-mail, etc.). Once anonymized, these data may be made available to researchers via accessible data repositories and possibly used for novel purposes. Your anonymized data will be stored for at least 10 years.

After completing this study you will learn the motive behind the study.

If you have any remarks or complaints regarding this research, you may also contact the Ethics Review Board of Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences via ERB@tilburguniversity.edu.

- I understand the nature of the task I am being asked to perform. I am aware that my list of arguments is intended for use by the researchers associated with this study. I further understand that I will receive course credit, regardless of whether or not I write, and allow release of, my list of arguments.



Appendix B

Anagram-solving task

The first task is an anagram-solving task. You will see a list of 10 scrambled words and your task is to unscramble as many of the words as you can by writing them down on the provided piece of paper (#1). For example, if one of the scrambled words is 'mnutie', you could write down the word 'minute'. You will have a total of 2 minutes to complete this task. When the two minutes are over, the experiment will automatically continue to the next part of the experiment.



Appendix C

Recollection task

The second task is a recollection task. We ask you to recall and write down a specific situation or activity. On the next page you will see exactly which situation or activity. Do not use the same piece of paper that you used for the anagram task. Instead, use a new piece of paper (#2). You will have a total of 3 minutes to complete the task.

Please recall all the activities you have done yesterday.



Appendix D

Essay task high-choice

The task that we will ask you to do next is an essay task. The topic for this essay has been suggested by a committee here on campus. In return for their helping us to obtain a research grant, we have agreed to gather some information for them in the course of our research. The committee is currently discussing exam regulations, and specifically whether students should be allowed to take a resit after an initial passing grade. Different universities maintain different regulations regarding resit exams, so the committee is considering changing the resit system to be more consistent. A proposal to enforce the rule that students are only allowed to take a resit after a failing grade has been presented to the committee.

Before making a recommendation, however, the committee would like to gather arguments on both sides of the issue.We have found that a good way of doing this is simply to ask people to list all the arguments they can think of that support a particular side of the issue."

On the next page you will see whether we want you to write down arguments in SUPPORT of changing the resit regulation (i.e., students can only do a resit when they fail an exam) or arguments AGAINST changing the resit regulation (i.e., students may always do a resit). In either case, you will have three minutes to write down as many arguments as you can. For this task, please use the piece of paper labelled #3. Because this survey is part of a research project, we want to remind you that your participation is completely voluntary. We would appreciate your help, but we do want to let you know that it's completely up to you.

Please write down as many strong and forceful arguments as you can in SUPPORT of resit system change



Appendix E

Essay task low-choice

The task that we will ask you to do next is an essay task. The topic for this essay has been suggested by a committee here on campus. In return for their helping us to obtain a research grant, we have agreed to gather some information for them in the course of our research.

The committee is currently discussing exam regulations, and specifically whether students should be allowed to take a resit after an initial passing grade. Different universities maintain different regulations regarding resit exams, so the committee is considering changing the resit system to be more consistent. A proposal to enforce the rule that students are only allowed to take a resit after a failing grade has been presented to the committee. Before making a recommendation, however, the committee would like to gather arguments on both sides of the issue. We have found that a good way of doing this is simply to ask people to list all the arguments they can think of that support a particular side of the issue."

On the next page you will see whether we want you to write down arguments in SUPPORT of changing the resit regulation (i.e., students can only do a resit when they fail an exam) or arguments AGAINST changing the resit regulation (i.e., students may always do a resit). In either case, you will have three minutes to write down as many arguments as you can. For this task, please use the piece of paper labelled #3.

Please write down as many strong and forceful arguments as you can in SUPPORT of resit system change.



Appendix F

Preference for consistency

The next task is a questionnaire. Please indicate to what extent you agree with each statement.

1. "I prefer to be around people whose reactions I can anticipate"

2. "It is important to me that my actions are consistent with my beliefs"

3. "Even if my attitudes and actions seemed consistent with one another to me, it would bother me if they did not seem consistent in the eyes of others"

4. "It is important to me that those who know me can predict what I will do"

5. "I want to be described by others as a stable, predictable person"

6. "Admirable people are consistent and predictable"

7. "The appearance of consistency is an important part of the image I present to the world"

8. "It bothers me when someone I depend on is unpredictable"

9. "I don't like to appear as if I am inconsistent"

10. "I get uncomfortable when I find my behavior contradicts my beliefs"

11. "An important requirement for any friend of mine is personal consistency"

12. "I typically prefer to do things the same way"

13. "I dislike people who are constantly changing their opinions"

14. "I want my close friends to be predictable"

15. "It is important to me that others view me as a stable person"

16. "I make an effort to appear consistent to others"

17. "I'm uncomfortable holding two beliefs that are inconsistent"

18. "It doesn't bother me much if my actions are inconsistent"



Appendix G

Debriefing

Thank you for participating in this study. You helped contribute to our understanding of human behavior.

In this study we asked you list several arguments for a particular position. You likely agreed or disagreed with the position you were asked to take. Based on previous research, we believe that writing an essay on a position you disagree with can make you feel uncomfortable. One aim of the present was to see how people respond to this discomfort.

[We also assessed the electrical activity of your skin with two electrodes placed on your fingers. This measure of electrical activity is also referred to as the skin conductance response, and can be used as a general measure of physiological arousal. We wanted to test whether writing down arguments you disagree with indeed results in some discomfort, as seen as in the skin conductance response.] In case of a skin conductance study.

[Prior to the experiment we said that we would measure the electrical activity of the skin. However, while we did place electrodes on your fingers, these electrodes were not functional. Instead, we were interested in whether the mere act of measuring a physiological response would affect your answers to the questions in this study.] In case of a fake skin conductance study.

If you'd like to know more about the study, you can either ask the test leader or contact the main researcher: Willem Sleegers (w.w.a.sleegers@uvt.nl).

Finally, thank you again for your participation!



Appendix H

List of questions for a pretest

Please indicate for each of the statements below the extent to which you agree (1) or disagree (7) with the statement.

1. More classes should be taught during the evening period.

2. More courses should have mandatory attendance; not just for the seminars meetings, but also for the lectures.

3. Education should be completely free.

4. Students should pay to park their car on the university campus.

5. The university curriculum should also include physical education courses.

6. The university curriculum should also include military-related courses.

7. Students should only be allowed to resit an exam if they failed the first attempt.

8. Grades should be abolished

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...