Literature DB >> 722473

Arousal as a necessary condition for attitude change following induced compliance.

J Cooper, M P Zanna, P A Taves.   

Abstract

This study examined whether arousal is or is not a necessary condition for attitude change in the induced compliance paradigm. In a 2 times 3 design, experimental subjects were induced to write counterattitudinal essays under either high- or low-choice conditions. All subjects were led to believe that a pill, which they had just taken in the context of a separate experiment, was a placebo. In reality, subjects were given a pill that contained either phenobarbital (tranquilizer condition), amphetamine (amphetamine condition), or milk powder (placebo condition). In this last condition, the results yielded the usual dissonance effect: High choice produced more attitude change in the direction of the essay than low choice. When subjects were given a tranquilizer, this effect was virtually eliminated; when subjects were given amphetamine, attitude change increased under high choice and was exhibited for the first time under low choice. These results are consistent with the notion that attitude change is in the service of reducing arousal and with the idea that arousal from other sources can be misattributed to attitude-discrepant behavior.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1978        PMID: 722473     DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.36.10.1101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol        ISSN: 0022-3514


  4 in total

1.  Why Do People Believe What They Do? A Functionalist Perspective.

Authors:  Matthew Tyler Boden; Howard Berenbaum; James J Gross
Journal:  Rev Gen Psychol       Date:  2016-12-01

2.  Design approaches to experimental mediation.

Authors:  Angela G Pirlott; David P MacKinnon
Journal:  J Exp Soc Psychol       Date:  2016-03-24

3.  Incidental mood state before dissonance induction affects attitude change.

Authors:  Marie-Amélie Martinie; Yves Almecija; Christine Ros; Sandrine Gil
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Motivated explanation.

Authors:  Richard Patterson; Joachim T Operskalski; Aron K Barbey
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 3.169

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.