P/S 08 · Attitude change
Changing Minds
Interpret experiments on cognitive dissonance and the two routes to persuasion.
Passage
An attitude is a lasting evaluation of a person, an object or an idea. Attitudes have affective, behavioral and cognitive components, and social psychologists study how attitudes form and change. Cognitive dissonance theory proposes that people feel an uncomfortable tension when their attitudes and behavior conflict, or when they hold two inconsistent beliefs, and that they are motivated to reduce this tension. They can do so by changing the attitude, changing the behavior, adding new beliefs that support their choice, or minimizing the importance of the conflict. Dissonance is expected to be strongest when people feel that they freely chose a behavior that conflicts with their beliefs.
The elaboration likelihood model describes two routes to persuasion. In the central route, a person who is motivated and able to think carefully about a message is persuaded by the quality of its arguments. In the peripheral route, a person who is unmotivated or distracted is influenced by superficial cues, such as the credibility of the source, the attractiveness of the speaker or the number of arguments presented.
Part 1. Researchers recruit 120 students who all strongly oppose a proposal to lengthen the school day by one hour. Participants are randomly assigned to three groups of 40. The control group does nothing. In the low-choice group, participants are told that they must write a short speech supporting the proposal. In the high-choice group, participants are told that they may decide whether to write the speech, and all of them agree to do so. After the writing task, every participant rates his or her attitude toward the proposal on a scale from −10 (strongly opposed) to +10 (strongly in favor). Table 1 shows the mean ratings.
Table 1. Mean attitude toward lengthening the school day.
| Group | Mean rating |
|---|---|
| Control (no speech) | −6.0 |
| Low choice (required to write a speech) | −5.5 |
| High choice (agreed to write a speech) | −2.0 |
Part 2. In a second study, 240 participants read a message urging them to support a new recycling policy. The researchers vary three features: whether the policy would affect the participants’ own neighborhood (high personal relevance) or a distant city (low personal relevance), whether the message contains strong or weak arguments, and whether it is attributed to an expert or to a non-expert. After reading it, participants rate their attitude. Table 2 shows the mean amount by which the attitude shifted toward supporting the policy, in rating points.
Table 2. Mean attitude change after reading the message.
| Personal relevance | Arguments | Source | Mean attitude change |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | Strong | Non-expert | 4.0 |
| High | Weak | Non-expert | 0.5 |
| High | Weak | Expert | 0.7 |
| Low | Strong | Non-expert | 1.0 |
| Low | Weak | Non-expert | 1.0 |
| Low | Weak | Expert | 3.0 |
Participants in both studies completed their ratings privately and anonymously, and all were told afterward about the purpose of the experiment. The researchers acknowledge that the attitudes measured are self-reported and that they cannot tell whether the changes would last a week or a month.
Questions
Question 1 of 6
In Part 1, the high-choice group changes its attitude much more than the low-choice group. According to cognitive dissonance theory, why?
The passage gives no data about the length of the speeches, and the theory does not depend on length.
Dissonance is expected to be greater when the person freely chose the behavior. Forced participants can blame the requirement.
All of the participants strongly opposed the proposal at the start.
Why the answer is what it is
The low-choice participants have an external justification (they were told to do it), so their behavior does not conflict much with their attitude. The high-choice participants have no such excuse, so they reduce the dissonance by shifting their attitude toward the position they argued for.
Review: Social Interaction & Group Behavior · Emotion, Stress, and Motivation · Cognition & Decision-Making
Question 2 of 6
What is the purpose of the control group in Part 1?
The control group is a comparison, and the aim is not to make the groups the same.
Random assignment is a feature of how the groups are formed, not of a control group.
All of the participants opposed the proposal, including those in the control group.
Why the answer is what it is
The control group’s mean rating (−6.0) shows where attitudes would be without the speech. Comparing it with −5.5 and −2.0 shows how much each procedure changed attitudes.
Review: Social Interaction & Group Behavior · Emotion, Stress, and Motivation · Cognition & Decision-Making
Question 3 of 6
In Table 2, among participants with high personal relevance, strong arguments produce much more change (4.0) than weak arguments (0.5). Which route to persuasion does this suggest?
The pattern comes from the quality of the arguments and the participants’ attention to them.
In the high-relevance rows the source (expert or non-expert) made little difference (0.5 versus 0.7). The argument quality did.
The participants read the message and were affected by its arguments.
Why the answer is what it is
When the topic is personally relevant, people think carefully and the strength of the arguments decides the outcome. That is the central route.
Review: Social Interaction & Group Behavior · Emotion, Stress, and Motivation · Cognition & Decision-Making
Question 4 of 6
With low personal relevance, a weak message from an expert (3.0) changes attitudes more than the same message from a non-expert (1.0). This pattern indicates that:
If they had, strong arguments would work better than weak ones. Instead, strong and weak arguments from a non-expert had the same effect (1.0).
With high personal relevance, the expert source had almost no effect (0.7 versus 0.5).
They were influenced by the source, so they did take in at least that information.
Why the answer is what it is
When motivation is low, people take mental shortcuts. They did not distinguish strong from weak arguments (1.0 versus 1.0 from non-experts), but an expert source raised the change to 3.0, as expected on the peripheral route.
Review: Social Interaction & Group Behavior · Emotion, Stress, and Motivation · Cognition & Decision-Making
Question 5 of 6
A smoker who knows that smoking is harmful says, ‘I could be hit by a car tomorrow anyway, so it does not matter.’ According to dissonance theory, this is:
The statement is about reducing internal conflict, not about processing an external message.
The smoker keeps smoking, so the behavior has not changed.
The rationalization is a response to discomfort. It suggests that dissonance is present.
Why the answer is what it is
The smoker keeps the behavior and the belief about its harm, but reduces the tension by making the harm seem less important. Minimizing the conflict is one of the ways of reducing dissonance.
Review: Social Interaction & Group Behavior · Emotion, Stress, and Motivation · Cognition & Decision-Making
Question 6 of 6
The researchers note that the attitudes were self-reported and measured right after the tasks. Which limitation does this most directly raise?
A larger sample makes it easier to detect differences. The size does not cause this problem.
The control group did not write a speech.
The study manipulates choice (Part 1) and relevance, argument quality and source (Part 2), which are independent variables.
Why the answer is what it is
Self-reported ratings taken immediately afterward do not show whether attitudes last or whether behavior changes. Participants may also adjust their answers to look consistent, even though the ratings were anonymous.
Review: Social Interaction & Group Behavior · Emotion, Stress, and Motivation · Cognition & Decision-Making
Built from these lessons