IVE RELAT I‘OEzg, ‘ AMY " N or . - c. , L A0 :RECEPTI'LO .vo HE [CT EFFEC F NG; A in D ARISON 0 $8M 'AEMMMP T T [M'MUNIZI ERATTITU HE PA E D. _ . . V . . _ ; A C. . ,V . . ,V ., _ .< ... . ..,_ ., ». . .,_.V E. _ _ . .. 2. . . _ . , , . . :. , V ‘ VD .. _ . , . . E. A ,A x , D _.. V. , _ ‘... ., _. ., V V MESSAGE: .v:E ‘f'A‘PERSUAQSl of; rée D e: in; IS! eg for. *ThfiS ERSIDTYV‘»; ;.,'M'|CHIGAN STATE UNIV E TATE A .m- . 2...? ? ~ ff ”flavour: a . x Hum. HA: N. fiflrarfi (AM «6 . A J: 3., :12 .. . If, . was I 1‘4 J 1. saga...“ D #3 14¢? . ryarmwab 53 m .39 .1.“me , v .D .3 DH. . 1 Mafia 4 Dfimflmm. . A E . . 1 4 {aw}? i D {.31 ..J:a:.¢mi Drawn“ it . . .D :9 1: D u «Ff?! [hr .nr/. .4. IV! a. ‘ aw )VV— tardy. fl Rfli 7 .,EUGEN 1. Jr 1:!” . a. r. . . . . .I I {Mr/11v Ffrl. . . D .11.“. ML. LIBRr' RY Michigan Sm: University . IHESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARISON OF THE RELATIVE IMMUNIZING EFFECT OF COUNTERATTITUDINAL ADVOCACY WITH THE PASSIVE RECEPTION OF A PERSUASIVE , _ MESSAGE. : presented by Eugene Ta'Te has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhoDo degree in Commun l cal-Ton Date 0-169 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE RELATIVE IMMUNIZING EFFECT OF COUNTERATTITUDINAL ADVOCACY WITH THE PASSIVE RECEPTION OF A PERSUASIVE MESSAGE BY Eugene Tate Research on counterattitudinal advocacy has generally shown that active participation in counterattitudinal encod- ing is more effective in producing attitude change in the direction of the counterattitudinal endorsement than is the passive reception of a persuasive message. Several studies have shown that subjects who participate actively in counter- attitudinal advocacy maintain these new attitudes longer than attitudes resulting from passive reception. However, no one has sought to compare the relative immunizing effects of these two persuasive techniques. This investigation sought to replicate previous research by hypothesizing that active participation in counterattitudi— nal advocacy would produce greater attitude change among subjects than the passive reception of a persuasive message. It was further hypothesized that among persons showing identi— cal amounts of initial attitude change, as the result of either counterattitudinal advocacy or the passive reception of a Eugene Tate persuasive message, those persons who had participated in counterattitudinal advocacy would be less influenced by counterpropaganda than those who had merely received the persuasive message. An experiment was conducted in which subjects were asked either to read or write a counterattitudinal essay. Subjects who wrote the essay were asked to complete partially con- structed sentences with words of established high language intensity, arrange these completed sentences into a persuasive message, and write the message as their own. Other subjects read the message and underlined those passages which they considered to be most persuasive. After encoding (reading) the counterattitudinal messages, subjects were given a counter- propaganda message which supported their original attitudes. The replication hypothesis that persons who perform counterattitudinal advocacy will demonstrate more attitude change in the direction of the message than persons who are only passive recipients of a persuasive message was not sup- ported. Reasons for the failure to replicate are discussed in terms of attribution theory. The major hypothesis focusing upon the relative immuniza— tion effect produced by counterattitudinal advocacy as com— pared to the passive reception of a persuasive message was not supported. When the subjects were divided according to initial attitude change, a relationship between amount of Eugene Tate initial attitude change and the degree of immunization was discovered. Persons in both experimental conditions who demonstrated high degrees of attitude change showed immuniza— tion against the counterpropaganda. Moderate changers showed no immunization effect but demonstrated a tendency to return to their original positions after reading the counterpropaganda. Low changers showed a boomerang effect after confronting the counterpropaganda by becoming more extreme towards the ex— perimental topic. A COMPARISON OF THE RELATIVE IMMUNIZING EFFECT OF COUNTERATTITUDINAL ADVOCACY WITH THE PASSIVE RECEPTION OF A PERSUASIVE MESSAGE BY EugeneTTate a A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1970 06 7.23% Accepted by the Faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. %/// K W irector of the Thesis Guidance Committee: Dr. Francis M. Donahue Dr. Jeanne Gullahorn Dr. Hideya Kumata Dr. Lawrence E. Sarbaugh C:;Zabummc«t257 2i:ww‘wALnJL {Cf/,W‘A... /Jpc(/r-/I”v~ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to take this opportunity to express my appreci- ation to the persons who helped make this dissertation possible. Dr. Gerald R. Miller has guided me through my graduate program and served as director of the dissertation. I thank him for his encouragement, guidance, and counsel during these past three years. The members of my guidance committee, Dr. Lawrence E. Sarbaugh, Dr. Hideya Kumata, Dr. Jeanne Gullahorn, and Dr. Francis M. Donahue, have each provided advice and encour— agement at important points during my graduate work. I owe each of them more than I can ever express. Marian and Tim Shaffer worked hard to find enough sub— jects at Central Michigan University. I deeply appreciate this work and want to also thank each of the instructors at Central Michigan who cooperated by making their classes available this past summer. Gus Alexander and Stuart Surlin served as experimenters arising one morning at four a.m. to make the trip north. Finally I want to express my apprecia— tion to Michael Burgoon who made his procedures available for my use. My wife, Connie, already knows how thankful I am for her help, encouragement, and self-sacrifice. I thank her again for without her none of this would have come to pass. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 Research on Active Role Play. . . Hypotheses and Rationale. . . . . I I 0 METHOD 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pretest . . . . . . . . . . . . . Independent Variables . . . . . . Experimental Induction. . . . . . Dependent Variable. . . . . . . . Control Variables . . . . . . . . Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . Audience Attitude. . . . . . . Public Commitment. . . . . . . Manipulation Checks . . . . . . . Review of Procedures. . . . . . . III 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O 0 O o 0 O O O O 0 0 Subject Attrition . . . . . . . . Manipulation Checks . . . . . . . Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . Audience Attitude. . . . . . . Importance . . . . . . . . . . Control Group . . . . . . . . . . Test of the Hypotheses. . . . . . IVO DISCUSSION 0 O o 0 o o o 9 0 0 O O O Sumary O o O O o o O O O O o O 0 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX A: PRETEST ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE O 0 APPENDIX B: MATERIALS USED IN COUNTERATTITUDINAL ADVOCACY MANIPULATION. . . . . iv Page UMNEA P \1 50 55 TABLE OF CONTENTS——continued Page APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: COUNTERPROPAGANDA MESSAGE. . . . . . . . 62 MATERIALS USED IN THE PASSIVE RECEPTION MANIPUIATION O O O O O O O C O O C O O C 63 POST-COUNTERPROPAGANDA QUESTIONNAIRE . . 69 TABLE 1. 10. LIST OF TABLES Pretest attitude means, group size and analysis of variance for experimental conditions after randomization O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 Percentage, frequency, and Chi-square test of subjects correctly perceiving audience attitude Mean differences of attitude change between time of attitude measurement for subjects in contrOl group ' o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Mean difference of attitude change between Control and Experimental groups from pretest to post-encoding questionnaire . . . . ._. . . . . Mean attitude scores and analysis of variance for all subjects. . . . . . .D. . . . . . . . . Group size, mean amount of attitude change between pre-experimental and post—encoding attitudes, standard deviation, and range of attitude change scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean attitude scores and analysis of variance for persons demonstrating low attitude change . Mean attitude scores and analysis of variance for persons demonstrating moderate attitude Change 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 0 Mean attitude scores and analysis of variance for persons demonstrating high attitude change. Tests for significant differences between two time of measurement means at given levels of type of message conditions. . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 19 21 25 24 26 27 28 29 50 52 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem When a person encodes a counterattitudinal message, how immune is he to future persuasive messages seeking to reinforce his original position? Janis and King (1954) demonstrated that active participation in a counterattitudi- nal role play is more effective in producing attitude change than merely listening to the message. ‘Conversely, McGuire (1964) found that persons participating in passive role play demonstrated more resistance to persuasive messages arguing against a cultural truism than persons who participated actively in preparing a defense for the truism. McGuire's research, however, focused only upon resistance to messages which attacked cultural truisms, i.e., "One should brush his teeth after every meal." Persons who are asked to participate in the role of preparing counterarguments to the truism are at a disadvantage because they have never previously con- sidered such arguments. Persons who passively read counter- arguments prepared by another person (the experimenter) feel less frustration and become immunized to future persuasive attempts. Since research on counterattitudinal advocacy focuses upon controversial topics with which subjects are involved, active participation may well produce an immuniza- tion effect (McGuire, 1964) protecting the participant from future persuasive attempts. While numerous researchers have studied the persuasive efficacy of counterattitudinal advocacy in terms of the amount of attitude change reported by counterattitudinal role players, no one has attempted to assess the resistance to change of attitudes altered by counterattitudinal advocacy. More specifically, the present study deals primarily with the following question of general interest to students of persuasion: Will attitude change resulting from counter- attitudinal advocacy prove more resistant to subsequent counterpropaganda than attitude change resulting from passive reception of a persuasive message? Research on Active Role Play Janis and King (1954) sought to show that persons who actively verbalize the content of a counterattitudinal message will demonstrate greater attitude change in the direction of the message than those who only passively read or listen to the arguments. Based on an initial question- naire, three topics were chosen and messages prepared advocat- ing beliefs inconsistent with those indicated by the subjects on the pretest. Each subject was then asked to play the role of a sincere advocate of the given point of View for one topic and listen to presentations of the other two topics. After the third presentation, a posttest containing the original attitude measure and filler items was administered. Janis and King found that on two of the three topics persons who participated in the active role play changed their attitudes significantly more in the direction of the message than did the passive role players. On the third topic, attitude change did not differ significantly between the two groups, but the active role players indicated that they were more confident of their responses than were the passive role players. Active role players using the third topic also showed less improvisation than active role players delivering the other two topics. Finally active role players for the third topic expressed less satisfaction with their performance, claiming that this topic was harder to present than the other two. Culbertson (1957) found significant attitude change in the direction of an experimental topic after seven to ten days among subjects who had participated actively in a role play. Subjects who had observed the role play demonstrated more attitude change than control subjects but less change than persons who had participated actively in the role play experience. Since Culbertson took no immediate measures of attitude change, there is no possibility of assessing the effect of active participation over time. Mitnick and McGinnies (1958) reported that subjects who participated in groups viewing a film and then spent thirty minutes in informal discussion of it and related issues, showed greater retention of attitude change than persons who were in groups who only viewed the film. Although there was no significant difference in attitude change immediately after the two treatments, one month later the film—alone group had regressed significantly toward their pretreatment position while the film—discussion group showed no significant change from their immediate post—treatment scores. Watts (1967) varied the type of role play by asking half the subjects to read a counterattitudinal essay and the other half to write an essay. An opinion questionnaire was admin- istered after each subject had written one essay and read two others on different topics. Six weeks later, each subject was again asked to indicate his opinion on the topics and to recall and to state the side taken on the issue in the previous induction session. Since Watts took no preuexperimental measure of attitude there is no way to compare active with passive role play in his study. However, Watts found that subjects who wrote a counterattitudinal essay showed an increased attitudinal favorability towards the experimental topic while those who read the essay actually regressed in their attitudes towards the topic. Active participants were also more likely to report that they had discussed the topic with other persons and read books on it during the six weeks between measure- ments. Hypotheses and Rationale In light of the lack of evidence concerning the dif- ferences in immunization between the two forms of persuasion—- counterattitudinal advocacy or passive reception of a persua— sive message-—this study tested the following major hypothesis: H1 Among persons demonstrating identical amounts of initial attitude change, persons who have participated in counterattitudinal advocacy will demonstrate more resistance to change following exposure to counterpropaganda than persons who are passive recipients of a persuasive message. This hypothesis is based upon the immunization research of McGuire (1960) and McGuire and Papageorgis (1961, 1962) in which resistance to persuasion was developed in persons through various types of manipulations and messages. It is also based upon the findings of Watts (1967) and Culbertson (1957) indicating that attitude change induced by active participation in counterattitudinal advocacy lasts longer than change brought about by observing or reading a per— suasive message. Since this investigation also seeks to replicate the findings of Janis and King (1954), King and Janis (1956), Culbertson (1957), Elms and Janis (1965), and Janis and Gilmore (1965) which show that counterattitudinal advocacy results in greater initial attitude change than passive reception of a persuasive message, the following replication hypothesis was also tested: 2 Persons who engage in counterattitudinal advocacy will demonstrate more attitude change in the direction of the position advocated than persons who merely read the persuasive message. H CHAPTER II METHOD Overview On the basis of pretest results, an issue was chosen which was counterattitudinal for Se. gs were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. In one experi— mental condition, §s encoded belief-discrepant essays using sentences constructed by E_in which they inserted words of established high-intensity. In the other experimental condition, gs read a persuasive message consisting of the same sentences used in the first experimental condition but with highly intense words inserted by E, Se in the second condition were asked to underline those sentences which they believed to be most persuasive. Control gs completed the post-encoding and posttest with no intervening manipulation. After gs in the experimental groups had written (read) the counterattitudinal message they completed the post—encoding questionnaire and read counter—propaganda. The posttest for all groups was given under a second experimenter guise. Pretest Students enrolled in undergraduate Sociology, Political Science, and Education courses at Central Michigan University were administered the pretest questionnaire during the first two days of the summer session. The questionnaire contained several issues considered to be salient for undergraduate students. Each issue was followed by four, seven interval scales bounded by the following adjectives: good—bad, valuable-worthless, pleasant-unpleasant, fair—unfair (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957). Issues were scored by summing across the attitude scales on a one low, seven high basis. Thus, with four attitude scales per issue, the possible range was from four (maximally unfavorable) to twenty-eight (maximally favorable). Mandatory on—campus residency for undergraduate students, the issue producing the most skewed distribution, was chosen as the experimental issue. Independent Variables Two independent variables were employed in this investi- gation: 1: Type of persuasive technique: This variable was dichotomized as active counterattitudinal advocacy and passive reception of a persuasive message. Se in the Counter- attitudinal Advocacy condition constructed a message from sentences provided by E, Within each sentence they were asked to choose between two highly intense words (Burgoon, 1970), insert the chosen word into the sentence, order the sentences to make a persuasive message, and copy this message onto a piece of paper at the top of which they placed their name. Burgoon (1970) has found that this procedure is effective in producing the levels of dissonance necessary for attitude change while controlling for length and intensity of message. Word intensitities used in the experimental message were determined on the basis of research by Lilly (1968a, b), Bowers (1965, 1964), Jones and Thurstone (1955) and Burgoon (1970). The message developed by Burgoon was used in this study to allow for the replication of his procedures. Se in the Passive Reception condition were given a persuasive message to read and were asked to underline those passages which they considered to be most persuasive. This latter procedure was utilized to insure that each § would consider the arguments of the message as well as read it. The message utilized in the Passive Reception condition con— sisted of the same sentences and words used in the Counter— attitudinal Advocacy condition. 2: Amount of Attitude Change: At the completion of the first part of the investigation (essay writing or under— lining) §s were ordered by the amount of attitude change they demonstrated between the pretest and post-encoding question— naire. gs were grouped into three conditions of approximately equal size. The first group contained those who showed the 10 most attitude change (High Change), the second those who showed moderate change (Moderate Change), and the third those who showed little or negative change (Low Change). Unfortunately, as is noted later, the higher attrition rate among Counterattitudinal Advocacy gs made it impossible to construct groups of comparable size to those constructed for Passive Reception gs. Experimental Induction §s were randomly assigned to experimental and control conditions by class, since the experimental manipulations made it necessary for each §_in the same room to be given the same task. The experimental induction was given 5 weeks after the pretest. As gs arrived in their rooms they were given the experimental messages. Se in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition received an envelope containing the following letter. Dear Student: For the past several months, the Center for Opinion Research at Michigan State University has been conduct- ing research aimed at finding out what it takes to strengthen or change people's attitudes. What we do is get some indication of the attitudes people have on certain issues and then, at some later date, we present certain arguments in the form of speeches, essays, debates-~various methods--which are designed to get them to change or strengthen their attitudes. Let me explain briefly what we are attempting to do in the research that you will be helping us with. Sometime ago we administered questionnaires to students enrolled in high schools across the state of Michigan asking them their attitudes toward the policy of required on-campus living for college students. That is, we were inter- ested in their opinions on the issue of whether or not college students should be required to live on campus during their attendance at college. Analysis of the questionnaires indicate that these students are general- ly UNDECIDED on the issue. We then asked over 500 Michigan State University students to write persuasive messages to support a policy that would require students to live on campus while attending a university. You will soon be given the arguments that these students created. We found that the arguments produced were similar in content. HOWEVER, OUR ANALYSIS OF THE PRESUASIVE EFFECT OF THESE MESSAGES INDICATES THAT CERTAIN WORDS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT IN CHANGING THESE STUDENT'S ATTITUDES. Thus in preparing your persuasive messages it is very important for you to choose what you feel are the most persuasive words. It is important that you select the words you think will be successful for we feel that all our effort to date depends on your choice of the per- suasive words. Think about the choices and try to decide which word in each argument might be best used to change attitudes. Also the order of the arguments is important and we want you to think about what order of presentation might be most effective. This part of the research is very important to the successful completion of the project. We want to thank all of you for helping us create messages that we will show to high school students in an attempt to change their attitudes toward on—campus living. Remember we want you to persuade the students to support mandatory onwcampus living. Along with the letter, the §_received eleven slips of paper on which the sentences were printed (see Appendix B). One word was omitted from each sentence and the g was given a choice of two highly intense words with which to fill the blank, i.e., ”I on campus living because it makes the person a more well~rounded individual.” ”Word choices: strongly like, like very much.” gs were informed that they were free to choose whether or not to participate. Each g 12 then completed the sentences, ordered them into a message which he considered to be most persuasive, and raised his hand as a signal to E that he was ready for the next part of the study. After he raised his hand, each §_was given a blank piece of paper and asked to write the message on it being certain to place his name at the top so that he could be given credit for “his ideas"u (see Appendix B). gs who chose not to participate were asked to simply put their name on the paper and state that they did not wish to participate. After gs had completed the writing of the essay they were given the post—encoding questionnaire (Appendix B). At the end of the questionnaire they found the counterpropaganda with the words: ”Now we thought you might like to read one of the messages we are using to persuade high school students that mandatory on-campus living is not the best solution to housing during college attendance.“ The counterpropaganda used adverbs of the same intensity as those utilized in the counterattitudinal message (Appendix C). Se in the Passive Reception condition were given a book— let as they entered the room. The first page of the booklet contained the introductory letter, the first two paragraphs of which were the same as those used in the previously described induction. Beginning in the third paragraph this letter went on to say: We then asked over 500 Michigan State University stu— dents to write persuasive messages to support a policy that would require students to live on campus while 15 attending a university. We found that the arguments produced were similar in content. You will soon be given a very typical message to read. We would like you to read through this message and underline those arguments which seem most persuasive to you. Remember to pick only those arguments which you personally think are most convincing. After you have completed this task we would like you to respond to the questionnaire items which are attached to it. This part of the research is very important to the successful completion of the project. Remember we want to know which arguments in this message are most convincing and persuasive to you. You can help us by reading through the persuasive message very carefully and noting your responses to it. Thanks again. Passive Reception gs were then given a persuasive message constructed from the same sentences used in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition with the highly intense words inserted by E (see Appendix D). After finishing with the message gs completed the postmencoding questionnaire and read the counterpropaganda. At the close of each experimental session, E thanked the group for its participation and then said that in order to use gs at Central Michigan he had volunteered to cooperate with one of the departments in distributing an opinion survey questionnaire for them. The postwcounterpropaganda question- naire was then distributed with the introduction that the Department of Speech and Dramatic Arts at Central Michigan University was undertaking one of their periodic surveys of student opinion (see Appendix E). Included among a number of controversial issues were scales for measuring post~ 14 counterpropaganda attitudes toward mandatory on—campus living for undergraduates. After gs had completed this posttest, E_again thanked them for their participation and turned the class back to the instructor. Dependent Variable The dependent variable in this investigation was atti- tude change: the differences between §fs attitude scores on the pre-test, the post—encoding questionnaire, and the post— counterpropaganda measure. Control Variables Choice Festinger (1957) suggests that an §_must be given free choice in a forced compliance situation in order to experience dissonance great enough to produce attitude change. Research by Brock (1962), Linder, Cooper and Jones (1967), and Holmes and Strickland (1970) shows that persons in high choice situations change their attitudes more in the direction of the counterattitudinal endorsement than persons in low choice conditions. Since this investigation sought to produce maxi— mum attitude change, choice was held constant across condi— tions. Every §_was told that he was free to not participate in the study if he so desired. 15 Audience Attitude Nel, Helmreich and Aronson (1969) and Bodaken (1970) provide support for the importance of perceived audience attitude in counterattitudinal advocacy research. If an‘g believes that the message he is preparing will be used to persuade an uncommitted audience that something is good for them which the §_actually believes is harmful, he will experience greater dissonance while preparing the counter- attitudinal message and show greater attitude change. .Thus, Se in the Nel g£_gl, study and the Bodaken study who encoded a counterattitudinal message for an uncommitted audience showed more attitude change than persons writing essays which would be read by an audience committed to a position on the topic. In the present investigation, gs were informed that the audience for their essay was uncommitted on the topic. Public Commitment Collins (1968) contends that public commitment to a counterattitudinal position increases the dissonance experi— enced by the person making the endorsement. In this investi— gation, gs were asked to sign their names to the essay they were writing so that ”they could be given credit" for their ideas thus inferring their actions would be made public. Manipulation Checks The perceived attitude of the target audience was assessed by asking the gs to respond to the following 16 question: "Before you wrote (read) your essay, how did you think the high school students felt toward the issue of compulsory on—campus living?" gs responded by checking either Favorable, Undecided, Opposed, or Don't Know. The perceived importance of the §fs contribution to the persuasion campaign was assessed by asking the question: "Did you feel that your contribution to the persuasion cam— paign was important?" gs responded on a seven~point semantic differential type scale ranging from Important to Unimportant. Review of Procedures 1. An issue was chosen on the basis of Ss' pretest attitude scores. 2. Se were randomly assigned by class to experimental and control conditions. 5. Instructions were given to the experimental groups including degree of attitude of target audience, §_free choice, and importance of study. 4. Control group gs were asked only to complete the post—encoding questionnaire and posttest. 5. Se in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition constructed counterattitudinal messages from argu— ments supplied by E. They were allowed 15 minutes to make word choices and order the message and 15 minutes to write the message. 17 6. gs in the passive role play condition read a pre— pared message and underlined those arguments they considered to be most persuasive. They were allowed 20 to 25 minutes for this task. 7. After gs had written (read) the essays, the post- encoding instrument was administered. 8. Se completed the post-encoding measure which included items designed to tap §fs attitudes toward the topic, perception of audience attitude, importance of their contribution to the persuasion campaign, and percep- tion of difficulty. 9. Se received a counterpropaganda message which argued against mandatory on—campus residency. 10. Se completed the post—counterpropaganda question— naire under the guise that it came from another department. 11. Se were debriefed. CHAPTER III RESULTS Subject Attrition Two hundred and twenty—six subjects completed the pre— test during the first week of classes for the summer session at Central Michigan University. These subjects were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups by class: 100 subjects in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition, 100 subjects in the Passive Reception condition, and 26 subjects in the Control condition. An analysis of variance was per- formed to check for differences between the groups on pre- test attitudes (Table 1). No significant difference was found. Three weeks later, when the experimental manipulations were given, considerable attrition of subjects was discovered in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition. In the Control group three subjects failed to attend the class session at which the experimental induction was given. In the Passive Reception condition only nine subjects failed to attend. By contrast, 25 subjects were absent from those classes chosen for the Counterattitudinal Advocacy manipulation. 18 19 Table 1. Pretest attitude means, group size and analysis of variance for experimental conditions after randomization. Condition N Mean Passive Reception 100 8.78 Counterattitudinal Advocacy 100 10.86 Control 26 10.04 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Groups 219.42 2 109.71 2.46 n.s. Within Groups 10058.25 226 44.51 Total 10277.65 228 = 5.04 3.05, g; = 2, 226, 20 In addition, a total of 57 subjects were dropped from the study before the computation of the data because they scored 16 or more points on the pretest. Since these persons were writing (reading) belief congruent messages, they were not used in this investigation. Fifteen of these subjects were in the Passive Reception condition and 22 in the Counter— attitudinal Advocacy condition. Two other subjects in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition were dropped because they failed to complete all questionnaires. Finally, nine subjects chose not to participate in the study after reading the experimental induction. One subject in the Passive Reception condition and eight subjects in the Counteratti— tudinal Advocacy condition withdrew under the free choice manipulation of the study. Thus, significantly more subjects in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition either failed to participate or were dropped than were dropped from the Passive Reception condition. (z? = 15.40, pig .001) Manipulation Checks Choice No direct written measure of choice was taken in the post—encoding questionnaire, however, the names of subjects who chose not to participate in each condition were noted by the experimenter. In the Passive Reception condition only one subject refused to participate. By contrast, in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition eight persons either 21 indicated to the experimenter that they did not wish to participate or returned their essays without placing their names on the top. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume the choice manipulation was effective. Subjects in both conditions felt they were free not to participate, but more of the Counterattitudinal Advocacy subjects took advantage of the freedom offered them. Audience Attitude The effectiveness of the audience attitude variable was checked by computing the number of subjects correctly identifying the attitude of the target audience on the post- encoding questionnaire. A Chi—square test was used to check for significant differences between the two groups (Table 2). Table 2. Percentage, frequency, and Chi—square test of sub- jects correctly perceiving audience attitude. Condition Correct Incorrect X2 P Counterattitudinal Advocacy 57% (24) 45% (18) Passive Reception 45% (54) 55% (41) 1.49 n.s. 2 = g; .05, g: = 1’ 5.84 22 No significant difference was found, with a majority of the subjects in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition (57%) correctly recalling the target audience attitude and slightly less than a majority of the subjects in the Passive Reception condition recognizing the correct attitude. Although there was no significant difference between the grOUps, it cannot be said that the number of subjects recalling the target audience attitude correctly is large enough to support unequivocally the efficacy of the audience attitude manipula- tion. Importance To assess perceptions of importance a p_test was run between the importance ratings of subjects in the Counter— attitudinal Advocacy group and subjects in the Passive Recep- tion group. A significant difference was found (3’: 5.78, d; = 115, p g .05). While neither of the groups crossed the midpoint of the scale for importance, the mean of the Passive Reception subjects (X = 4.41) was higher than the mean of the Counterattitudinal Advocacy subjects (i = 5.26). Thus, while the induction was the same for both groups, the Passive Reception group seems to have considered their participation in the study as more important than subjects in the Counter- attitudinal Advocacy condition. One explanation for this difference may be that subjects in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition downgraded the importance of the study in order to reduce their dissonance. 25 Control Group A £_test was used to test for attitude change among Control group subjects due to test sensitization, environ— mental factors between the pretest and experimental manipu— lation, etc. (Table 5). A significant difference was found Table 5. Mean difference of attitude change between time of attitude measurement for subjects in Control group. Mean Time Difference 3_ df P P1* vs. Pretest 1.87 2.50 22 = .05 P2* vs. P; 0.52 0.22 22 n.s. P2 vs. Pretest 0.85 0.96 22 n.s. .05, f = 22, = 2'07 Post—encoding questionnaire Post-counterpropaganda questionnaire "U m . II II between attitude scores on the pretest and attitude scores on the post-encoding questionnaire. There was no significant difference between the final two questionnaires nor between pretest attitude scores and post—counterpropaganda question— naire attitude scores. Therefore, it appears that the two experimenter guise helped to disguise the purpose of the final questionnaire. 24 Comparison of the Control group with the experimental groups on the amount of attitude change between pretest and post-encoding questionnaire (Table 4) revealed that although Table 4. Mean difference of attitude change between Control and Experimental groups from pretest to post- encoding questionnaire. Condition Difference t df P Passive Reception vs. Control 6.18 4.81 96 g_.05 Counterattitudinal Advocacy vs. Control 4.46 2.90 65 g .05 the Control group subjects did report significant differences in attitudes, the two experimental groups changed signifi- cantly more in their attitudes toward mandatory on-campus living. Both Passive Reception subjects and Counterattitudi— nal Advocacy subjects report significantly greater change in favor of the experimental topic than does the Control group. Test of the Hypotheses The replication hypothesis that Counterattitudinal Advocacy subjects would change their attitudes more in the direction of the experimental topic than Passive Reception subjects was tested using a Type I Analysis of Variance. 25 (Lindquist, 1955, pp. 266-275) Table 5 contains the mean attitude scores and analysis of variance summary for sub— jects in the Passive Reception and Counterattitudinal Advocacy conditions. There is no significant difference between sub- jects in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition and the Passive Reception condition due to the type of persuasive technique used to produce attitude change. Both groups show approximately equal attitude change (Passive Reception i = 7.25; Counterattitudinal Advocachi = 8.17). The replication hypothesis tested in this study is therefore not supported. The major hypothesis that among subjects demonstrating identical amounts of initial attitude change, those in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition would demonstrate more resistance to counter propaganda than subjects in the Passive Reception condition was tested by dividing subjects according to the amount of attitude change they showed between the pre— test and the post-encoding questionnaire. Subjects who changed their attitudes from 22 to 10 units on the attitude scale were placed in the High Attitude Change group. Subjects assigned to the Moderate Change condition changed their atti— tudes from nine to four scale units. Those subjects who reported a range from plus three to a negative shift on the attitude measure were placed at the Low Attitude Change group. Table 6 shows the size, mean amount of change, range and standard deviation of change scores for each group based upon amount of attitude change shown by the subjects between the Table 5. Mean attitude scores and analysis of variance for all subjects. Condition Pretest Post—encoding Post-count. N Passive Reception 7.25 15.00 9.48 75 Counterattitudinal Advocacy 8.17 14.50 9.50 42 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Subjects 5997.28 116 Type of message 2.01 1 2.01 .058 Error (b) 5995.27 115 52.15 Within Subjects 7491.55 254 Time of meas. 5280.45 2 1640.22 90.17 .S .05 Type X Time 26.50 2 15.25 .75 Error (w) 4184.58 250 18.19 Total 15488.61 550 = 5.04 3.05, g; = 2, 230, 27 Table 6. Group size, mean amount of attitude change between pre—experimental and post-encoding attitudes, standard deviation, and range of attitude change scores. Group N Mean S.D. Range Passive Reception High Att. Change 24 15.04 5.28 22 — 10 Mod. Att. Change 55 6.61 1.82 9 - 4 Low Att. Change 18 0.00 2.95 +5 - —6 Counterattitudinal Advocacy High Att. Change 14 14.28 4.16 22 - 10 Mod. Att. Change 11 6.00 2.14 9 - 4 Low Att. Change 17 0.00 2.40 +5 — -6 pretest and post—encoding questionnaire. A Type I analysis of variance was performed for each of the three levels of attitude change (Tables 7, 8, and 9). Again, in each group the type of persuasive technique failed to produce significantly different attitude change. There was in each group a significant effect for time of measure— ment. None of the three interaction effects were significant. Within each of the three groups there was a significant effect for the time at which the attitude measurement was taken. Thus there were significant differences in subjects' attitudes between those indicated on the pretest, the 28 Table 7. Mean attitude scores and analysis of variance for persons demonstrating low attitude change. Condition Pretest Post-encoding Post-C.P. Passive Reception 9.22 9.22 6.89 Counterattitudinal Advocacy 9.82 9.82 6.55 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Subjects 1178.25 54 Type of Message 2.05 1 2.05 .058 Error (b) 1176.18 55 55.64 Within Subjects 655.54 70 Time of meas. 182.95 2 91.46 15.51 '3 .05 Type X Time 5.59 2 2.70 .40 Error (w) 447.02 66 6.77 Total 1815.57 104 3.05, g; = 2, 66, = 5°14 29 Table 8. Mean attitude scores and analysis of variance for persons demonstrating moderate attitude change. Condition Pretest Post-encoding Post—C.P. Passive Reception 7.67 14.55 8.48 Counterattitudinal Advocacy 7.64 15.64 8.91 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Subjects 2524.22 45 Type of Message .25 1 .25 .004 Error (b) 2525.97 42 55.55 Within Subjects 1621.55 88 Time of meas. 1087.14 2 545.57 86.41 g .05 Type X Time 5.24 2 2.62 .42 Error (w) 528.95 84 6.29 Total 5945.55 151 = 2.71 Table 9. Mean attitude scores and analysis of variance for persons demonstrating high attitude change. Condition Pretest Post-encoding Post-C.P. Passive Reception 5.20 20.25 12.79 Counterattitudinal Advocacy 6.57 20.85 15.57 Source of Variance SS df MS F P Between Subjects 1565.79 57 Type of Message 22.50 1 22.50 .60 Error (b) 1541.49 56 57.26 Within Subjects 5251.54 76 Time of meas. 4141.06 2 2072.55 185.74 .3 .05 Type X Time 2.85 2 1.42 .12 Error (w) 811.79 72 11.28 Total 6615.15 115 3.05, g; = 2, 72, = 2.74. 51 post—encoding questionnaire, and the post-counterpropaganda questionnaire. This is true of subjects who show high attitude change, moderate attitude change and low attitude change. An analysis of the significant attitude change effect over time was completed for each group of subjects showing identical attitude change (Table 10) utilizing p_tests.l First, considering the two groups of subjects (Passive Reception——Counterattitudinal Advocacy) without regard to amount of attitude change, Passive Reception subjects as a whole report a significant difference between their pre— experimental and post—counterpropaganda attitudes while Counterattitudinal Advocacy subjects do not show this dif— ference. Since immunization is defined as a significant difference between pre—experimental and post-counterpropaganda attitude scores, Passive Reception subjects show this effect while Counterattitudinal Advocacy subjects do not show it. However, when subjects were grouped according to identical amounts of attitude change (High, Moderate, or Low) another pattern became evident in both conditions. This analysis showed that persons who change their attitudes lLindquist (1955, pp. 271, 165) gives the formula for testing the differences between two A (time of measurement) means at any given level of B (type of persuasive technique) E =\/’2MS i = (3‘1) (S—i) error (w) S 52 Table 10. Tests for significant differences between two time of measurement means at given levels of type of message conditions. Condition Difference 3_ df P Total group Passive Reception P; - Pre 7.75 11.14 148 .g .05 P2 — P; —5.52 —7.95 148 .S .05 P2 — Pre 2.28 5.20 148 .g .05 Counter. Advocacy P; - Pre 6.55 6.80 82 .S .05 P2 - P; —5.00 —5.57 82 .S .05 P2 — Pre 1.55 1.45 82 n.s. High Attitude Change Passive Reception P; - Pre 15.05 15.52 48 .g .05 P2 — P; —7.46 —7.69 48 .S .05 P2 — Pre 7.59 7.85 48 .g .05 Counter. Advocacy P; — Pre 14.28 11.25 26 _g .05 P2 - P; —7.28 -5.74 26 '3 .05 P2 — Pre 7.00 5.52 26 .g .05 Moderate Attitude Change Passive Reception P; — Pre 6.66 10.78 64 .g .05 P2 — P; —5.85 -9.48 64 .3 .05 P2 — Pre .81 1.51 64 n.s. continued Table 10-—continued 55 Condition Difference £_ df P Counter. Advocacy P; — Pre 6.00 5.62 22 .g .05 P2 — P; -4.75 —4.45 22 '3 .05 P2 - Pre 1.27 1.19 22 n.s. Low Attitude Change Passive Reception P; — Pre 0.00 P2 — P; -2.55 —2.69 54 .S .05 P2 - Pre —2.55 —2.69 54 .S .05 Counter. Advocacy P1 - Pre 0.00 P2 — P; -5.29 -5.68 52 .3 .05 P2 — Pre —5.29 —5.68 52 .3 .05 Pre = Pretest P; = Post—encoding questionnaire P2 = Post-counterpropaganda questionnaire 54 moderately after reading or composing a counterattitudinal essay tend to revert to their original positions after being confronted with counterpropaganda. Persons who report a high degree of attitude change, on the other hand, still show a significant difference between their pre-experimental and post—counterpropaganda attitudes. It is this group which may be said to show an immunization effect. Finally, persons who change their attitudes very little towards the experi- mental topic after encoding a counterattitudinal message, demonstrate a boomerang effect after being confronted with counterpropaganda. In other words, after the counterpropa— ganda they are more negative towards mandatory on-campus living than they were before the persuasive manipulation. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The discovery of a relationship between degree of attitude change shown by a person after exposure to a per— suasive attempt--either counterattitudinal advocacy or passive reception of a persuasive message—-and the degree of immunization against counterpropaganda is important for the student of persuasion. McGuire (1964) reports no study in which subjects were differentiated by their initial attitude scores. McGuire and Papageorgis (1961) found that the passive reading of a persuasive message containing refutational arguments to counterpropaganda produced a greater immunizing effect than active participation in encoding such refutational arguments. They reasoned that subjects in the active condition were not familiar with arguments attacking cultural truisms and therefore experienced greater effort and frustration in seeking to prepare arguments to refute counterpropaganda which they had not yet seen or read. This study provides a partial replication of the find— ings of McGuire and.Papageorgis. Subjects in the Passive Reception condition are immunized against the counterpropaganda, 55 56 while persons in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition show no significant difference between their pre—experimental and post-counterpropaganda attitudes. However, it must be remembered that, for some reason to be discussed later, the Counterattitudinal Advocacy manipulation did not take in this study; therefore, this lack of immunization may only be an artifact of this failure. Furthermore, as noted above, when subjects are divided according to the degree of initial attitude change the immunization effect is found only among High Attitude changers. No such effect is present among Moderate changers and Low changers demonstrate a boomerang effect. Thus, it would seem important that persons seeking to persuade others to their point of View attempt to use the most powerful method of persuasion possible, since maximum change seems to result in the least extinction following exposure to competing messages. Research by Culbertson (1957) and Watts (1967) indicates that this technique is active participation in counterattitudinal advocacy, however, the superiority of this method was not supported in this study. Several reasons may be suggested to account for the failure to support the persuasive superiority of counter— attitudinal advocacy over passive reception of a persuasive message. Janis and King (1954) showed that persons who actively participate in the encoding of a counterattitudinal 57 message change their attitudes in the direction of that message significantly more than persons who only listen to the message. Their research has been replicated by a host of experimenters including Culbertson (1957), Harvey and Beverly (1961), Elms and Janis (1965), Janis and Gilmore (1965) and Watts (1967). Burgoon's (1970) research demon— strated that among persons with similar prior attitudes, the magnitude of attitude change varies directly with the intensity of the counterattitudinal assertion. By utilizing highly in- tense words in the counterattitudinal assertion which subjects of this study encoded, a high magnitude of attitude change should have been produced. In fact, this was not the case. One possible reason for failure to replicate the find- ings of these researchers may lie in the fact that many of the subjects in this study were middle-aged teachers (especial- ly in one section of the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition) who did not take seriously the experimental induction. The failure of the induction can be seen by the low scores given to the question, "Did you feel that your contribution to the persuasion campaign was important?" Subjects in both condi- tjrnmsrated the importance of their participation below the midpoint of the scale. As noted above, one possible explana— tion for the low ranking of importance in the Counterattitu— dinal Advocacy condition is dissonance reduction. If the persons in this condition experienced a high degree of frus— tration over the experimental task, then one logical means of 58 reducing this frustration would be for them to perceive it as being relatively unimportant. Indeed, at one point in the study the experimenter had to ask two middle—aged women in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition to stop discussing the experimental induction out loud, for they were informing other subjects that this was just a fictitious story to get them to participate harder in the study. In addition, many subjects in this study failed to recall the attitude of the target audience. The blocking out of this information may also have served to reduce the dissonance under which the subject struggled while writing the counterattitudinal essay (Nel, Helmreich, and Aronson, 1969). Kelley (1967) and Collins (1969) have invoked attribu— tion theory to explain attitude change during counteratti— tudinal advocacy. Attribution theory posits that when a person performs some behavior, he must decide whether to attribute the behavior to some internal force or to some force in the environment, external to himself. Thus, when a person makes a counterattitudinal endorsement, he is faced with an attributional problem: should he attribute his action to himself or to some force in his environment, external to him— self? If he attributes it to environmental factors then he has no cause to view the statement as reflective of his own attitudes. He may, however, attribute the statement to some force within himself as a reflection of his own attitude. If this is the case, then the person may change his previous 59 attitude to be consistent with his overt behavioral statement. Collins (1969) states the basic proposition for attribution theory in these words: The individual is dependent on cues in the environment (discriminative stimuli) to help decide whether to attribute a 'counterattitudinal' act to the environ- ment (i.e., he makes no attitude change) or to himself (i.e., he changes his attitude to make it consistent with the overt statement). Bem (1967) has pointed out that high inducements to com— ply to a demand for counterattitudinal behavior are cues or discriminative stimuli which help the individual to define lying situations and that low inducements to comply help define truth-telling situations. Persons who encode a counter— attitudinal statement under conditions of active participa— tion (speech, essay, writing, etc.) are apt to View the behavior as their own, since they are actively involved in it. By contrast, passive receivers of a persuasive message need only read an essay which someone else has prepared for them. This is not their message for it specifically comes from an environmental source. Other environmental cues which enable the individual to solve his attirbutional problem lie in the amount of coercion the individual experiences. If the person perceives that he is performing this act of his own free choice (Brock, 1962; Linder, Cooper and Jones, 1967; Holmes and Strickland, 1970) he attributes the behavior to himself and changes his attitudes since he is in a truth-telling situation. However, if the person 40 perceives that he has no choice in the matter, he is in a lying situation and may attribute the behavior to an outside force. Similarly Wallace (1966) demonstrated the effect of internal versus external attribution by varying the type of feedback given subjects who had participated in a counter— attitudinal debate. After each person had completed his presentation, Wallace informed him that he either had excel— lent arguments but an average delivery or average arguments and a most persuasive delivery. Subjects receiving the "content rewards" reported that they had found the arguments in magazines or received them from friends. Subjects receiv- ing the "role rewards" showed significantly more attitude change than those receiving "content rewards“ because they could not attribute their behavior to external forces in the environment. They were simply informed that they were con— vincing liars. Since they were not used to considering them- selves as liars they changed their attitudes to fit their behavior. Collins (1969) argues that aversive consequences for a target audience, the performance of counterattitudinal en- dorsement, and public commitment to a counterattitudinal position will have no effect unless the person performing the behavior attributes the act and its consequences to forces within himself. If a person attributes his counter— attitudinal behavior to himself and changes his previous 41 attitudes to correspond to this behavior, he should be immunized against attacks upon these attitudes from environ- mental sources. In this study, subjects did not demonstrate this effect. By lowering the importance of the study and by not perceiving the attitudes of the target audience, they have been able to attribute their behavior to the experimenter. Furthermore, since the message they were to encode was given them by the experimenter they may have reasoned that these were not their own ideas and that they were not attributable to them even though they placed their names at the top of the essay. Similarly, the use of highly intense word choices—-some of them of stilted usage (e.g., strongly like, mighty favor— able, etc.)—-may have increased the cues suggesting that these were not their own ideas. The high intensity may have also increased subjects' frustration to the point that they re— acted negatively to the topic of mandatory on-campus housing. Research by Bowers (1964) and Carmichael and Cronkhite (1965) suggests that persons who are already highly aroused react negatively to language designed to push them even higher in attitude change. The procedures used in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition of this study did produce high levels of frustration, as evidenced by subjects' behavior during the experiment. This increase in frustration may have inhibited further attitude change. 42 Finally, the absence of an immunization effect in the Counterattitudinal Advocacy condition may be explained by the cue value of presenting the counterpropaganda message immediately following the post-encoding measure. Persons who have just encoded a counterattitudinal message are at a high level of frustration. They know their behavior does not correspond to their previous attitudes. However, this frustration is released when they discover that the experi- menter is not only using their messages but is also using another message which agrees with their previous positions. Their action will therefore have only a limited effect upon the target audience, since at least one-half of the audience will subsequently receive a message with which they agree. Thus, subjects are able to swing their attitudes back towards their original positions, although the data indicated that high changers do not swing all the way back. Further research is needed to compare the relative immunizing effects of counterattitudinal advocacy and the passive reception of a persuasive message. This research should attempt to control more adequately than did this study for "Type G error" (Lindquist, 1955, p. 10) by complete randomization of subjects to experimental and control groups. While this investigator desired complete randomization the pragmatics of the experimental environment necessitated the randomization of subjects by intact classes. The fact that the research was carried on at another university with the 45 cooperation of instructors who made as a requirement of their c00peration only one entrance into the class for experimental purposes, and the short length of time during which any work could be done in a summer session, combined to make intact group randomization a necessity. Further research efforts should be made to attempt to test the possible effect of time upon attitude change. If Watts (1967) is right that subjects participating in active Counterattitudinal Advocacy seek out reinforcing material for their behavior from the environment then the longer one waits before presenting the counterpropaganda the stronger ought to be the immunization effect of counterattitudinal advocacy. This research should also seek to ascertain the attributional qualities of the subject's behavior. Does he attribute it to himself, the experimenter, or other environmental forces? This information might be obtained in debriefing sessions with the subjects using a two experiment guise (Rosenberg, 1965; Carlsmith, Collins, and Helmreich, 1966). Such research should, however, utilize some form of manipulation such as that suggested by Burgoon (1970) or Miller (1970) to control for such factors as self—indoctrination through rehearsal of relevant arguments during counterattitudinal encoding, message intensity, and message length. 44 Summary An experiment was conducted in which subjects were asked either to read or write a counterattitudinal essay. Subjects who wrote the essay were asked to complete partially constructed sentences with words of established high intens- ity, arrange these completed sentences into a persuasive message, and write the message as their own. Other subjects read the message and underlined those passages they considered to be most persuasive. After encoding (reading) the counter— attitudinal messages, subjects were given a counterpropaganda message supporting their original position of anti—mandatory on-campus living. The study sought to replicate previous research by Janis and King (1964) with a replication hypothesis that subjects who perform active counterattitudinal advocacy will demonstrate more attitude change in the direction of the counterattitudinal message than persons who are only passive recipients of a persuasive message. This replication hypothesis was not sup— ported by the data. The major hypothesis of this study focused upon the rela- tive immunization effect produced by counterattitudinal advocacy as compared with passive reception of a persuasive message. The major hypothesis stated that among subjects of identical initial attitude change as a result of Counteratti- tudinal Advocacy or Passive Reception, those persons who had 45 encoded a counterattitudinal message would demonstrate more resistance to counterpropaganda than passive receivers of a persuasive message. The results showed that passive re- ceivers demonstrated more resistance to the counterpropaganda than did counterattitudinal advocates. When the subjects were divided according to initial atti— tude change (High Change, Moderate Change, Low Change) a relationship was discovered between amount of initial attitude change as the result of a persuasive message and the degree of immunization. Persons in both experimental conditions who demonstrated high degrees of attitude change also showed immunization against the counterpropaganda. Moderate changers showed no immunization effect but demonstrated a tendency to return to their original positions after reading the counter- propaganda. Low changers showed a boomerang effect after confronting the counterproprganda by becoming more anti— mandatory onwcampus housing-~the experimental topic. Reasons for the failure to replicate previous research are discussed in light of attribution theory. REFERENCES Bem, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 1967, 14, 185-200. Bodaken, E. M. Choice and perceived audience attitude as determinants of cognitive dissonance and subsequent attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Com- munication, Michigan State University, 1970. Bowers, J. W. Language intensity, social introversion, and attitude change. Speech Monographs, 1965, 59, 545-552. Bowers, J. W. Some correlates of language intensity. Qparterly Journal of Speech, 1964, 50, 415-420. Brock, T. C. Cognitive restructuring and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 264-271 0 Burgoon, M. Language intensity as predictors of message style and attitude change following counterattitudinal communication behavior. Unpublished doctoral disserta— tion, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1970. Carlsmith, J. M., Collins, B. E., and Helmreich, R. K. Studies in forced compliance: I. The effect of pressure for compliance on attitude change produced by face-to-face role playing and anonymous essay writing. Journal of Personality_and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 1-15. Carmichael, C. and Cronkhite, G. Frustration and language intensity. Speech Monographs, 1965, 52, 107-111. Collins, B. E. Studies in forced compliance: III and VIII. The effect of true-persuasive instructions, public— private essays, and financial inducement on attitude change produced by forced compliance. Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles, 1968. 46 47 Collins, B. E. Attribution theory analysis of forced com- pliance. Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, American Psychological Association, 1969. pp. 509-510. Culbertson, F. M. Modification of an emotionally held attitude through role playing. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 250-255. Elms, A. C. and Janis, I. L. Counter norm attitudes induced by consonant versus dissonant conditions of role playing. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1965, 1, 50-60. Festinger, L. A theory of cggnitive dissonance. Evanston: _Row, Peterson, Inc., 1957. Harvey, O. J. and Beverly, G. Some personality correlates of concept change through role playing. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 55, 125-150. Holmes, J. G. and Strickland, L. H. Choice freedom and con- firmation of incentive expectancy as determinants of attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 54, 59-45. Janis, I. L. and Gilmore, J. B. The influence of incentive conditions on the success of role playing in modifying attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 5, 17-27. Janis, I. L. and King, B. T. The influence of role playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 45, 211-218. Jones, L. V. and Thurstone, L. L. The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 55, 51-59. Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in Social Psychology. In Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. King, B. T. and Lanis, I. L. Comparison of the effectiveness of improvised versus non-improvised role playing in producing opinion change. Human Relations, 1956, g, 177-186. Lilly, R. S. Multiplying values of intensive, probalistic, and frequency adverbs when combined with potency adjectives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968a, 1, 854-858. 48 Lilly, R. S. The qualification of evaluative adjectives by frequency adverbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968b, 1, 555-556. Linder, D. E., Cooper, J. and Jones, E. Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 245—254. Lindquist, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1955. McGuire, W. J. Direct and indirect persuasive effects of dissonance-producing messages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 55, 554-558. McGuire, W. J. Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1969, pp. 156-514. McGuire, W. J. and Papageorgis, D. The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief—defense in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Ppychology, 1961, 55, 527-557. McGuire, W. J. and Papageorgis, D. Effectiveness of fore- warning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Qpinion Quarterly, 1962, 55, 24-54. Miller, G. R. Counterattitudinal advocacy: A current appraisal. Paper read at University of Southern California, July 1970. Mitnick, L. L. and McGinnies, E. Influencing ethnocentricism in small discussion groups through a film communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 55, 82-90 0 Nel, E., Helmreich, R. K. and Aronson, E. Opinion change in the advocate as a function of the persuasibility of his audience: A clarification of the meaning of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 23, 117-124. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H. The measure- ment of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1967. 49 Rosenberg, M. J. When dissonance fails: On eliminating evaluation apprehension from attitudinal measurement. Journal of Personalipy_and Social Psychology, 1965. 1, 28-42. Wallace, J. Role reward and dissonance. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 1966, 5, 505-512. Watts, W. Relative persistence of opinion change induced by active compared to passive participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 4-16. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PRETEST ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE OPINION PROFILE Name Instructor Course You are participating in an opinion survey conducted by the Department of Sociology. On each of the following pages you will find a number of current issues, each followed by a series of descriptive scales. For example, here is an item like those you will see: The United States should withdraw from the United Nations Bad : : : : : : Good Your job is to place a check-mark (X) above the line that best indicates your judgment about the proposition. For example, if you feel that U. S. withdrawal would be very bad, you would check as follows: Bad X : : : : : : Good If you feel that such a move (withdrawal) would be quite bad, you should check as follows: Bad : X 2 : : : : Good If you feel neutral or indifferent about the proposition, or if you feel that the scale is irrelevant to the propo- sition, you would check as follows: Bad : : : X : : : Good Remember: Never put more than one-check mark on a single scale and be sure that each check is in the middle of the line, not on the boundaries. ALL SCALES SHOULD BE CHECKED--DO NOT OMIT ANY. WORK RAPIDLY - - - RECORD FIRST IMPRESSIONS - - - DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES. 50 51 The use and possession of marijuana should be legalized. Good : : : : : : Bad Worthless : : : : : : Valuable Pleasant : : : : : : Unpleasant Unfair : : : : : : Fair Draft deferments should be eliminated for college students. Good : : : : : : Bad Unfair : : : : : : Fair Worthless : : : : : : Valuable Pleasant : : : : : : Unpleasant .All universities and colleges should establish Black Studies programs. Unpleasant : : : : : : Pleasant Bad : : : : : : Good Fair : : : : : : Unfair Valuable : : z : : : Worthless All students should be required to live on campus during their college attendance. Valuable : : : : : : Worthless Good : : 2 : : : _Bad Unfair : : : : : : Fair Pleasant : : : : : : Unpleasant 52 Psychological testing should be used to determine a student's academic major. Good 2 2 2 2 2 2 Bad Worthless : : : : : : Valuable Unpleasant : : : : : : Pleasant Fair 2 2 2 2 : : Unfair Students should have the right to decide course content in all their courses. Fair 2 2 2 2 2 : Unfair Bad 2 2 2 : 2 : Good Pleasant : 2 2 : : : Unpleasant Worthless 2 . Valuable R.O.T.C. training should be required of all male students. Unpleasant___2y__2 2 2 2 : Pleasant Valuable 2 : 2 2 : : Worthless Bad 2 2 2 2 2 2 Good Unfair 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fair Every student should be required to participate in sensitiv— ity training while in college. Valuable 2 2 2 2 2 2 Worthless Good 2 2 2 2 2 2 Bad Unfair 2 2 2 2 °___;___Fair Pleasant 2 2 2 2 : 2 Unpleasant APPENDIX B MATERIALS USED IN COUNTERATTITUDINAL ADVOCACY MANIPULATION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48825 College of Communication ArtSeDepartment of Communication Dear Student: For the past several months, The Center for Opinion Research at Michigan State University has been conducting research aimed at finding out what it takes to strengthen or change people's attitudes. What we do is get some indication of the attitudes people have on certain issues and then, at some later date, we present certain arguments in the form of speeches, essays, debates-—various methods——which are designed to get them to change or strengthen their attitudes. Let me explain briefly what we are attempting to do in the research that you will be helping us with. Sometime ago we administered questionnnaires to students enrolled in high schools across the state of Michigan asking them their atti— tudes toward the policy of required on-campus living for college students. That is, we were interested in their opin- ions on the issue of whether or not college students should be required to live on campus during their attendance at college. Analysis of the questionnaires indicate that these students are generally UNDECIDED on the issue. We then asked over 500 Michigan State University students to write persuasive messages to support a policy that would re- quire students to live on campus while attending a university. You will soon be given the arguments that these students created. We found that the arguments produced were similar in content. HOWEVER, OUR ANALYSIS OF THE PERSUASIVE EFFECT OF THESE MESSAGES INDICATES THAT QERTAIN WORDS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT IN CHANGING THESE STUDENT'S ATTITUDES. Thus in preparing your persuasive messages it is very impor- tant for you to choose what you feel are the most persuasive words. It is important that you select the words you think will be successful for we feel that all of our effort to date depends on your choice of the persuasive words. Think about the choices and try to decide which word in each argument might be best used to change attitudes. Also the order of the arguments is important and we want you to think about what order of presentation might be most effective. This part of the research is very important to the successful completion of the project. We want to thank all of you for helping us create messages that we will show to high school students in an attempt to change their attitudes toward on- campus living. Remember we want you to persuade the students to support mandatory on—campus living. Thanks again, Gerald R. Miller, Ph.D. Professor and Research Director 55 54 INSTRUCTIONS You are being given a set of arguments that students at Michigan State University have created favoring the policy of mandatory on-campus living. Each argument has one or more sets of words that tend to be critical determinants of attitude change. Please go through ALL of the arguments and select the word THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE MOST PERSUASIVE. From the word choices, select the word you feel is most appropriate and WRITE it in the blank space. Think about your choices and how high school students might react. We want you to create the most persuasive message you possibly can. Now place the arguments in the ORDER OF PRESENTATION THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE MOST PERSUASIVE. When you have made all the word selections and ordered the arguments, read the entire message that you have created. When YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH YOUR WORK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 PRE—CONSTRUCTED SENTENCES I on-campus living because it makes the person a more well-rounded individual. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: STRONGLY LIKE LIKE VERY MUCH People who live on campus during their college attendance usually the opportunity to meet new people and do different things. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: LIKE VERY MUCH ESTRONGLY LIKE I personally the concept of living on campus and becoming involved with the many events a univer- sity has to offer. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: LIKE INTENSELY LIKE EXTREMELY It is generally agreed that on-campus housing offers recre- ation facilities that are . PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: EXCELLENT WONDERFUL I the idea of mandatory on-campus living during college attendance. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: LIKE EXTREMELY LIKE INTENSELY I think any high school student would be making a mistake if he did not expose himself to the many ideas, attitudes, and values one finds in university housing. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: VERY BAD TERRIBLE 56 It would be for students to miss the experience of living with many different kinds of people. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: VERY BAD TERRIBLE All in all, it is a (an) experience to live on campus while attending the university. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: EXCELLENT WONDERFUL It can also be a (an) social experience for a person to take housing in which he has opportunities to engage in organized functions. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: WONDERFUL EXCELLENT Also, on-campus living offers (B1) programs such as intramurals that can be (32) learning experiences for students. PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: (B1) MIGHTY FAVORABLE MIGHTY FINE (B2) EXCELLENT WONDERFUL To be in an environment where a person will be subject to new ideas constantly is . PERSUASIVE WORD CHOICES: EXCELLENT WONDERFUL 57 Name Now please refer to the cards you have. We want you to write the total message AS YOU HAVE CREATED IT. Remember this is your message and we will want to present it to the students who are UNDECIDED on the issue of mandatory on-campus living. We hope our efforts to change their attitudes to SUPPORT such a policy will be successful with your help. Please be sure your name is on this sheet so that we give you credit for your ideas. 58 NAME INSTRUCTOR COURSE Now, we would like to get your opinion on the issue of whether or not students should be expected to live on campus during their attendance at the University. Please read these instructions very carefully as this is the same type of questionnaire that we gave to the high school students and we want to be able to score it in the same way. Please consider the following example: All colleges should establish BLACK STUDIES PROGRAMS. This is an excellent idea. This is a good idea. This is a fair idea. This is a neutral idea. This is m poor idea. This is DJ bad idea. This is a terrible idea. Instructions: 1. PLACE A LARGE "A" in the BLANK YOU MOST AGREE WITH. 2. NOW GO BACK AND PLACE AN "X" IN EACH BLANK THAT YOU ALSO AGREE WITH. For instance you might think the establishment of a Black Studies Program in Colleges is an EXCELLENT idea but you might also agree that it is GOOD and FAIR. 59 Again, please place an "A“ by the blank that BEST indicates your feeling about On-campus living. Then place an "X" by the blanks that you also agree with. ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR _____This _____This This _____This ____;This This This is is is COLLEGE ATTENDANCE an excellent idea. a gggg idea. a £33; idea. a neutral idea. a pggr idea. a 555 idea. a terrible idea. NOW PUT AN "X" ON EACH SCALE NEXT TO THE ONE BLANK THAT BEST INDICATES YOUR FEELINGS: ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE Very Pleasant Quite Pleasant Slightly Pleasant Neutral Slightly Unpleasant Quite Unpleasant Very Unpleasant 60 ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE _____Very Good Quite Good _____Slightly Good Neutral _____Slightly Bad Quite Bad Very Bad ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE _____Very Valuable Quite Valuable _____Slightly Valuable Neutral _____Slightly Worthless Quite Worthless _____5Very Worthless ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE Very Unfair Quite Unfair ____5Slightly Unfair Neutral _____Slightly Fair Quite Fair Very Fair 61 Did you feel that your contribution to the persuasion campaign was important? Important 2 2 2 2 2 2 Unimportant Before you wrote your essay, how did you think the high school students felt toward the issue of compulsory on—campus residency? They were favorable toward compulsory on-campus residency. They were undecided toward compulsory on-campus residency. They were opposed to compulsory on—campus residency. I don't know what their attitude was toward com— pulsory on-campus residency. How difficult was it for you to write the essay on this issue? Easy Difficult Neither APPENDIX C COUNTERPROPAGANDA MESSAGE Now we thought you would like to read one of the messages we are using to persuade high school students that mandatory on-campus living is not the best solution to housing during college attendance. I dislike strongly the concept of mandatory on-campus living because it is old fashioned. Such a concept is restrictive on college students. Mandatory on-campus living is very bad because it is a hang over from the days when college authori- ties saw themselves as substitute parents. Students need an opportunity to be independent, take care of their own lives, and develop a style of life which suits their personality. Mandatory on-campus living is bad because it prevents them from doing this. Most Canadian universities do not have dormitories on the campus. Canadian students are considered mature enough to manage their own affairs when they come to campus. This is a much better attitude than the View of some college officials that students are children or sheep who must be herded and protected. While there may be some short term advantages to living on campus, such as close proximity to all activities, the excellent advantages for growth and self-discipline make off campus living much more preferrable for the student. All in all I dislike extremely the concept of mandatory on—campus living. 62 APPENDIX D MATERIALS USED IN THE PASSIVE RECEPTION MANIPULATION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48825 College of Communication ArtSoDepartment of Communication Dear Student: For the past several months, the Center for Opinion Research at Michigan State University has been conducting research aimed at finding out what it takes to strengthen or change people's attitudes. What we do is get some indication of the attitudes people have on certain issues and then, at some later date, we present certain arguments in the form of speeches, essays, debates--various methods——which are designed to get them to change or strengthen their attitudes. Let me briefly explain what we are attempting to do in the research that you will be helping us with. Sometime ago we administered questionnaires to students enrolled in high schools across the state of Michigan asking them their atti- tudes toward the policy of required on-campus living for college students. That is, we were interested in their opin- ions on the issue of whether or not college students should be required to live on campus during their attendance at college. Analysis of the questionnaires indicate that these students are generally UNDECIDED on the issue. We then asked over 500 Michigan State University students to write persuasive messages to support a policy that would re- quire students to live on campus while attending a university. We found that the arguments produced were similar in content. You will soon be given a very typical message to read. We would like you to read through this message and underline those arguments which seem most persuasive to you. Remember to pick only those arguments which you personally think are most convincing. After you have completed this task we would like you to respond to the questionnaire items which are attached to it. This part of the research is very important to the successful completion of the project. Remember we want to know which arguments in this message are most convincing and persuasive to you. You can help us by reading through the persuasive message very carefully and noting your responses to it. Thanks again. Gerald R. Miller, Ph.D. Professor and Research Director 65 64 I like extremely the idea of mandatory on-campus living dur- ing college attendance. I think any high school student would be making a very bad mistake if he did not expose him— self to the many ideas, attitudes, and values one finds in university housing. To be in an environment where a person will be subject to new ideas constantly is wonderful. It would be very bad for students to miss the experience of living with many different kinds of people. People who live on campus during their college attendance usually like very much the opportunity to meet new people and do different things. It can also be an excellent social experience for a person to take housing in which he has opportunities to en- I gage in organized functions. Also, on-campus living offers mighty fine programs such as intramurals that can be a wonderful learning experience for students. It is generally agreed that on-campus housing offers recreation facilities that are especially good. I personally like intensely the concept of living on campus and becoming involved with the many events a university has to offer. I strongly like on- campus living because it makes the person a more well—rounded individual. All in all, it is an excellent experience to live on campus while attending the university. 65 NAME INSTRUCTOR COURSE Now, we would like to get your opinion on the issue of whether or not students should be expected to live on campus during their attendance at the University. Please read these instructions very carefully as this is the same type of questionnaire that we gave to the high school students and we want to be able to score it in the same way. Please consider the following example: All colleges should establish BLACK STUDIES PROGRAMS. This is an excellent idea. This is a good idea. This is a fair idea. This is a neutral idea. This is a poor idea. This is a bad idea. This is a terrible idea. Instructions: 1. PLACE A LARGE ”A" in the BLANK YOU MOST AGREE WITH. 2. NOW GO BACK AND PLACE AN ”X" IN EACH BLANK THAT YOU ALSO AGREE WITH. For instance you might think the establishment of a Black Studies Program in Colleges is an EXCELLENT idea but you might also agree that it is GOOD and FAIR. '1 66 Again, please place an "A" by the blank that BEST indicates your feeling about on-campus living. Then place an "X" by the blanks that you also agree with. ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE This is an excellent idea. This is a 3955 idea. This is a jgip idea. This is a neutral idea. This is a poor idea. This is a bad idea. This is a terrible idea. NOW PUT AN ”X” ON EACH SCALE NEXT TO THE ONE BLANK THAT BEST INDICATES YOUR FEELINGS: ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE _____Very Pleasant Quite Pleasant Slightly Pleasant Neutral Slightly Unpleasant Quite Unpleasant Very Unpleasant 67 ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE ‘__m_yVery Good Quite Good _____Slightly Good Neutral _____Slightly Bad ______Quite Bad Very Bad ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE _____Very Valuable Quite Valuable _____Slightly Valuable Neutral ___”_Slightly Worthless Quite Worthless __m__5Very Worthless ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO LIVE ON CAMPUS DURING THEIR COLLEGE ATTENDANCE Very Unfair Quite Unfair _____Slightly Unfair ______Neutral ___g__Slightly Fair Quite Fair Very Fair 68 Did you feel that your contribution to the persuasion campaign was important? Important 2 2 2 2 2 2 Unimportant Before you read this essay, how did you think the high school students felt toward the issue of compulsory on-campus residency? They were favorable toward compulsory on—campus residency. They were undecided toward compulsory on-campus residency. “— They were opposed to compulsory on-campus residency. I don't know what their attitude was toward compul- sory on-campus residency. How persuasive do you think this message will be? Very Persuasive 2 2 2 2 2 2 Not Persuasive _—.._____._._.______—_._—_ APPENDIX E POST-COUNTERPROPAGANDA QUESTIONNAIRE OPINION SURVEY Name Date Instructor Course Periodically the Department of Speech and Dramatic Arts at Central Michigan University surveys student opinion on a number of related topics. On each of the following pages you will find a number of current campus issues, each followed by a descriptive scale. For example, here is an item like those you will see: No student should receive a failing grade without the opportunity to change the grade with special work. Fair 2 z 2 ,3 2 2 Unfair Your job is to place a check—mark (X) above the line that best indicates your judgment about the proposi- tion. For example, if you feel that students should I be given this opportunity and it is fair to all, you I would check as follows: Fair X 2 2 2 2 2 2 Unfair If you feel it is fair but not fair to all, you should check as follows: Fair 2 2 X 2 2 2 2 Unfair If you feel neutral or indifferent about the propo— I sition, or if you feel that the scale is irrelevant | to the proposition, you would check as follows: Fair 2 2 2 X 2 2 : Unfair Remember: Never put more than one check mark on a single scale and be sure that each check is in the middle of the line, not on the boundaries. . WORK RAPIDLY - — - RECORD FIRST IMPRESSIONS — - - DO NOT MAKE I ANY CHANGES. ALL SCALES SHOULD BE CHECKED - — — DO NOT OMIT ANY. 69 71 College attendance standards should be changed to allow for education of minority students. Unpleasant 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pleasant Professors should be allowed to give the same grade to all students in a class. Pleasant 2 2 2 2 2 2 Unpleasant All students should be required to live on campus during their college attendance. Good 2 2 2 2 2 2 Bad Students should be consulted before any faculty member is hired. Valuable 2 2 2 2 2 2 Worthless Students should have representation on all faculty committees. Valuable 2 2 2 2 2 2 Worthless College attendance standards should be changed to allow for education of minority students. Unfair 2 2 2 2 2 2 Fair All students should be required to live on campus during their college attendance. Unpleasant 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pleasant Professors should be allowed to give the same grade to all students in a class. Fair 2 2 2 2 2 2 Unfair Students should have representation on all faculty committees. Unpleasant 2 2 2 2 2 2 Pleasant Students should be consulted before any faculty member is hired. CO Pleasant 2 2 2 Unpleasant C0 C0 \ _ . 4 GAN MUCH V LIBRAF’lES T S R E V N U E T A 2 T S 4hr: Ra.- Lairhtn. Ir