Contributors: Cognition, langues, langage, ergonomie (CLLE); École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE); Université Paris Sciences et Lettres (PSL)-Université Paris Sciences et Lettres (PSL)-Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès (UT2J); Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université Bordeaux Montaigne (UBM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Toulouse Mind & Brain Institut (TMBI); Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès (UT2J); Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3); Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès (UT2J); Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3); Université de Toulouse (UT); Tilburg University Netherlands; State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY); University of Bergen (UiB); Macquarie University; University of California Santa Barbara (UC Santa Barbara); University of California (UC); Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU); University of New South Wales Kensington; Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale : contextes et régulation (LPS (URP_4471)); Université Paris Cité (UPCité); King‘s College London; University of Rhode Island (URI); Université de Genève = University of Geneva (UNIGE); Appalachian State University; University of North Carolina System (UNC); Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive (LAPSCO); Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Clermont Auvergne (UCA); Université Clermont Auvergne (UCA); Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale (LPS); Aix Marseille Université (AMU); Jubail University College; University of Amsterdam Amsterdam = Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA); Macquarie University Sydney; University of Warsaw (UW); PsyCAP : Equipe Recherche Psychologie appliquée (PsyCAP); Centre d'Etudes et d'Expertise sur les Risques, l'Environnement, la Mobilité et l'Aménagement (Cerema); Laboratoire de Psychologie des Cognitions (LPC); Université de Strasbourg (UNISTRA); Graz University of Technology; Laboratoire de Psychologie : Cognition, Comportement, Communication (LP3C - EA1285); Université de Bretagne Sud (UBS)-Université de Brest (UBO)-Université de Rennes 2 (UR2)-Institut Brestois des Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société (IBSHS); Université de Brest (UBO); Centre de recherches sur la cognition et l'apprentissage UMR 7295 (CeRCA Poitiers, Tours ); Université de Poitiers = University of Poitiers (UP)-Université de Tours (UT)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS); Dynamique des capacités humaines et des conduites de santé (EPSYLON); Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 (UPVM)
نبذة مختصرة : International audience ; According to cognitive-dissonance theory, performing counterattitudinal behavior produces a state of dissonance that people are motivated to resolve, usually by changing their attitude to be in line with their behavior. One of the most popular experimental paradigms used to produce such attitude change is the induced-compliance paradigm. Despite its popularity, the replication crisis in social psychology and other fields, as well as methodological limitations associated with the paradigm, raise concerns about the robustness of classic studies in this literature. We therefore conducted a multilab constructive replication of the induced-compliance paradigm based on Croyle and Cooper (Experiment 1). In a total of 39 labs from 19 countries and 14 languages, participants ( N = 4,898) were assigned to one of three conditions: writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice, writing a counterattitudinal essay under low choice, or writing a neutral essay under high choice. The primary analyses failed to support the core hypothesis: No significant difference in attitude was observed after writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice compared with low choice. However, we did observe a significant difference in attitude after writing a counterattitudinal essay compared with writing a neutral essay. Secondary analyses revealed the pattern of results to be robust to data exclusions, lab variability, and attitude assessment. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to test predictions from cognitive-dissonance theory. Overall, the results call into question whether the induced-compliance paradigm provides robust evidence for cognitive dissonance.
Processing Request
No Comments.