MSU

LIBRARIES
—_

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
PIace in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

VESTED INTEREST AND ROLE-PLAYING:

BETWEEN ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR

BY

Leonardo A. Salazar

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION

1984

ABSTRACT

VESTED INTEREST AND ROLE-PLAYING:
BETWEEN ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR

BY

Leonardo A. Salazar

The assumption that hedonically relevant situations
condition participants' behavior in role-playing studies
was explored. It was found that participants' responses
in a laboratory setting were not reflecting their true
attitudes and behaviors toward a hedonically relevant
issue (a tuition increase). Participants contradicted
their previous attitudes when confronted with an actual
possibility of behaving outside the laboratory. Apparently
laboratory experiments, themselves, constitute a hedonically
relevant situation which influences participants' responses
on behavioral and attitude measures. On the other hand,
hedonically relevant information made more salient through
role-playing strongly influenced participants' routine
behavior regardless of the attitudes they had showed in the
laboratory. Practical and theoretical implications of the

assumptions explored here were discussed.

To Orlando and Belisa

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To William Crano and Gerald R. Miller my deep appre-
ciation. The former guided me through the process of
conceiving and conducting this research. The latter
patiently showed me how to give a coherent form to this
work.

William Donohue and Michael Miller discussed and
offered me important suggestions. My thanks.

The Fondo Nacional de Investigaciones Agr0pecuarias
of Venezuela provided me with the Opportunity to come to

Michigan State University.

I am grateful to Vickie Currie and Karl Schafer-Junger

who shared with me hours of correction and the typing of

drafts.
A special thanks to Claudia, Felix, and Juan Pablo.
Together we do the necessary things to motivate each

other and build up strengths.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .

The Role-playing Literature . .

Vested Interest and Incentive Differen-

tiation . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . .
Attitudes in the Laboratory . .
Requested Behavior in the Laboratory

Requested Behavior Outside the Labora-

tory I O O I O O O I O 0
II 0 METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O 0

Overview . . . . . . . . . .
Participants . . . . . . . .
Experimenters . . . . . . . .

Manipulation and Measures . . . .
Favorable Sponsorship . . . . .
Anonimity and Free Choice . . . .
Vested Interest . . . . . . .
Role-playing . . . . .
Attitude Measure and Manipulation

Check . . . . . . . . . .
Laboratory Behavior Measure . . .
Behavior Manipulation . . . . .
Outside Laboratory Behavior Measure

Design . . . . . . . . . . .

III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . .
Manipulation Check . . . . . . .
Attitudes in the Laboratory . . .
Requested Behavior Outside the Labora-

tory O O O O O O O I O O 0

iv

Page

vi

vii

15
19
19
19

20
21

21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23

23
24
24
24
25

26

26
27

31

Chapter Page

III. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . 35
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
REFERENCES 0 O C O O O C O O O O O 0 S4

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Descriptive Statistics for the Manipulation
Check by Condition . . . . . . . . . 27
Analysis of Variance of the Attitude
Measure 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 28
Descriptive Statistics for the Attitude
Measure by Condition . . . . . . . . 29
Analysis of Variance of the Laboratory
Behavior Measure . . . . . . . . . 30
Descriptive Statistics for the Laboratory
Behavioral Measure (Petition) by Condition . 31
Analysis of Variance of the Post Laboratory
Behavior Measure . . . . . . . . . 32
Descriptive Statistics for the Post-
Laboratory Behavior Measure by Condition . 33

vi

Appendix

A. Departmental Research Consent Form

B. Vested Interest Manipulation (High and Low)

C. Reasons (Favoring and Contrary) to a
Tuition Increase . . . . . .

D. Laboratory Questionnaire--Attitude and
Affect Scales . . . . . . .

E. Petition . . . . . . . . .

F. Behavior Manipulation and Posttest

LIST OF APPENDICES

vii

Page
40
43

45

47
50

52

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This research explores the effect of vested interest,
or the hedonic relevance of an action or attitude (Sivacek
& Crano, 1982), on people's attitudinal changes in situa—
tions in which individuals are performing (role-playing)
the role of advocates of their own positions, or advocates
of positions contrary to their own (Elms & Janis, 1965;
Janis & Mann, 1965; Hoyt, Henley, & Collins, 1972; Nuttin,
1975). Furthermore, the study examines the implications
of vested interest and role-playing for people's subse-
quent behavior.

Suppose, in a discussion about theatre, your friend
says: "I do not like theatre. I think it is for lazy
peOple whose only interest is not to work but to wear
strange clothes and behave weirdly." Later you convince
your friend to go to a theatre practice which is open for
whoever wants to participate. Both of you participate.
Your friend receives good commentaries from the theatre
instructor and audience. Two months later, you find out
that your friend has changed majors and, to your surprise,

has become a theatre student.

Even though this hypothetical example may appear
exaggerated, your friend's attitudinal and behavioral
changes can be explained in the light of at least five
different sociopsychological theories.

Dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) would argue that
as your friend has expressed negative attitudes about the
theatre, the fact of participating in theatre exercises
produced a state of dissonance (inconsistency) because par-
ticipation was contrary to prior beliefs. As dissonance is
an unpleasant outcome of the condition "I did something I
do not believe," your friend restores consonance by chang-
ing previous attitudes about theatre.

A later version of dissonance theory (Aronson, 1968)
would add that the change occurred because the action of
theatre rehearsal was inconsistent with your friend's
self-concept. He would have thought, "I am doing some-
thing I said I did not believe" which is contrary to his
belief that he is a truthful and decent person. To pro-
tect his self-concept, he committed himself to be a theatre
student.

In contrast to Festinger's theory, incentive theory
(Janis & Gilmore, 1965; Janis, 1968) holds that role-playing
makes peOple experience the positive and negative outcomes
of a particular situation. The balance of these outcomes
would induce a biased scanning process which, in turn,

would determine the direction of the attitude change.

Incentivists would state that your friend's balance of
outcomes made him selectively perceive the positive out-
comes of practicing theatre. Hence, he found favorable
arguments and avoided unfavorable ones to change his posi-
tion.

Self-perception theory (Bem, 1967, 1972) would posit
that your friend inferred his own attitudes from his
behavior. He may have said to himself, "Since I am prac-
ticing theatre and there is nothing compelling me to do so,
I must infer that I like theatre." From Bem's perspective,
if there are no constraints to which individuals can attrib-
ute their behavior, they will attribute to themselves
attitudes which are consonant with their behavior.

From a functionalistic point of view (Katz, 1960), an
attitude will change according to the function it fulfills
in a specific circumstance. Functionalistic-oriented
work (Pepitone, 1966; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971;
Schlenker, 1973, 1982) has converged to the idea that atti-
tude change following counterattitudinal behavior repre-
sents an individual's rationalization with the function
of protecting his self and his public image to relevant
others.

Even though all these theoretical perspectives have
stimulated considerable research, none has been convinc-
ingly supported. The literature is plagued with contra-

dictory findings. It is important that future research

deal with the study of possible variables which may
further understanding of these contradictory findings
and, in turn, permit a more effective and practical use
of the body of knowledge generated.

Consider a promising alternative direction. Sivacek
and Crano (1982) suggested that the attitude-behavior rela-
tionship would be maximized when the behavior suggested
by a specific attitude (or the outcomes of an attitude-
behavior sequence) has clear and obvious vested interest
(hedonic relevance) for the actor. In the first of two
experiments, they examined hedonic relevance, or one's
vested interest in the attitude, as a function of age.

In the 1978 elections, a prOposal to change Michigan's
legal drinking age from 18 to 21 years was on the ballot.
Sivacek and Crano found that respondents' readiness to
work against the pOpular referendum and the amount of time
they were willing to give for that cause were correlated
with their age. All respondents were opposed to the pro-
posal, but those who would be the most affected by its
approval (those who were 18 to 19 years old) showed sig-
nificantly more willingness to fight the proposal and
offered more of their time to work against it.

In the second study, the experimenters examined the
effects of vested interest in an experiment that involved

participants' attitudes toward a prOposal about the use of

senior comprehensive examinations at the university.
Again, participants who perceived they would be greatly
affected (positively or negatively) by the implementation
of the senior comprehensive examination system showed
significantly more attitude-behavior consistency than
other participants.

Returning to your friend's performance, it can be
argued that experiencing "success" in the rehearsal (the
audience's and instructor's good comments) and feeling,
perhaps, what an actual theatre student felt--"It was my
first contact with a cheering audience. I was in a pink
cloud. The first time I knew what it was like to hold a
whole roomful of people in the palm of my hand" (Sanford,
1966, p. 10)--changed his perspectives about theatre and
transformed it into a hedonically relevant activity.

It is possible to make an analogy between your
friend's theatrical experience and the actions of partici-
pants in role-playing studies. One of the most effective
techniques to produce attitude change in both laboratory
and natural settings is to induce participants to role-
play a situation where they advocate a proattitudinal or
counterattitudinal position. The literature to be reviewed
was generated to test differing theoretical explanations
of the attitudinal changes people show after performing in
a role-playing situation. None of these studies tested

the vested interest hypothesis, but if it is correct,

participants may have experienced hedonically relevant
situations whiCh may have misled experimenters in their
interpretations.

There are at least two possible hedonically relevant
situations for participants: First, they may experience
vested interest because of the laboratory setting; i.e.,
the presence of the experimenter or other laboratory fac—
tors may condition participants' behavior regardless of
the experimental manipulation; second, the experimental
manipulation (position advocated) may be interest-arousing.
These two possible vested interest situations may act as
similar or contrary forces in determining participants'
responses and may have implications for their future

behavior in real life roles.

The Role-playing Literature

 

Role-playing has been used in three broad categories:
As a laboratory method to replace deception (Cooper, 1976;
Forward, Canter, & Kirsch, 1976; Greenberg, 1974; Mixon,
1972); as a means of explaining the development of the self
(Corsini, 1966; Goffman, 1959; Moreno, 1946, 1962; Wilshire,
1982); and as a technique to promote attitudinal and
behavioral changes (Miller & Burgoon, 1973; Miller, 1981).

Focusing on the third area, Miller (1981) and Miller
and Burgoon (1973) define two types of role-playing: first,

generalized role-playing, which is a highly involving

 

persuasive technique that places individuals in hypotheti-
cal situations where they can eXperience certain outcomes
as if they were behaving in a real life setting; second,
counterattitudinal advocacy, in which individuals are
placed in situations that require them to behave in ways
contrary to their previous attitudes and beliefs.

Not until the 19505 did the search begin for an
explanation of the effectiveness of role-playing in chang-
ing attitudes and behavior. King and Janis (1954, 1956)
examined the effects of improvisation and satisfaction
with the role-playing performance. In their second study,
one group of active participants read a counterattitudinal
speech aloud; the other group read the script silently and
then gave an improvised speech. Participants in the first
condition were more satisfied with their performance than
those in the second condition, but the latter showed sig-
nificantly more attitude change. King and Janis concluded:

When passively exposed to a persuasive communi-

cation, many persons may fail to be convinced

because, although capable of fully comprehending

the meaning of the arguments, they fail to have

the sort of thoughts and anticipations that

would motivate them to change their mind . . .

in effect, the costumer is not simply asked to

examine the ready-made material in the original

communication but is given scissors, needle, and
thread to hand tailor the material to suit him-

self (p. 184).

The kinds of "thoughts and anticipations“ that King

and Janis predicted pe0p1e would experience in improvised

role-playing were extended by Scott (1957, 1959a, 1959b).

In his last study involving participants with differing
degrees of radicalism in attitudes, Scott (1959b) deter-
mined to what extent attitude change would persist. Par-
ticipants engaged in an elimination debate contest whose
winners would share a $100 prize. Pretreatment attitudes
about three issues were assessed, and one week later,
participants were assigned to defend a particular side of
one of the issues regardless of their previous attitudes.
Thus, some defended their own side; others counteratti-
tudinally advocated; and others, who did not have a clear
position toward the issue in question, defended "off—
neutral" positions. The winners of the first round were
chosen randomly.

Ten days later, the winners were contacted for a
second round, and after yet another 10 days, the winners
of the second debate were called for the third and last
round of the contest. As in the first round, participants
in the second and third debates defended specific positions
regardless of their previous attitudes. In the latter
two debates, their performances were actually judged by
two psychology professors, a graduate student, and the
experimenter. Winners, regardless of other influencing
factors, changed significantly more toward the defended
position than did losers or controls. Furthermore, winners

maintained those attitudinal changes for at least 10 days.

The "thoughts and anticipations” suggested by King
and Janis may be better explained by post hoc analysis of
Scott's experiment based on the fact that winners, regard-
less of having been randomly chosen or actually judged,
and regardless of having defended their own, contrary, or
off-neutral positions, all changed in the direction of the
defended position. These findings cannot be explained by
invoking dissonance theory, but it is possible to defend
the position that winning was in their vested interest,
since our society strongly emphasizes winning. Moreover,
competing for a $20 prize surely was a hedonically rele-
vant reward for the students. Both vested interest rewards
could have led students to change attitudes and to main-
tain those changes for at least 10 days.

In 1957, Festinger published a theory which would
stimulate social psychology and generate most of the
research in the field for many years. Festinger posited
that if one believes one thing and advocates another, she/
he will experience cognitive dissonance because of the
conflicting cognitions: "(1) I believe X and (2) I am
advocating not-X." To resolve this dissonance, the person
will either find justifications for having counteradvo-
cated or will change attitudes toward the counteradvocated
position. The classic study by Festinger and Carlsmith
(1959) supported this position; as did later research by

Cohen (Brehm & Cohen, 1962).

10

Rosenberg (1956, 1960) develOped a consistency theory
which predicted different outcomes than dissonance theory.
He argued that results of previous dissonance experiments
could be explained by participants' evaluation apprehen-
sion, i.e., "an acting anxiety-toned concern that he (the
participant) win a positive evaluation from the experi-
menter, or at least that he provided no grounds for a nega-
tive one" (Rosenberg, 1965, p. 29). Rosenberg (1965)
developed a way to eliminate evaluation apprehension
through "altered replications" of previous experiments in
which the role-playing situation was separated from the
attitude measuring phase. Thus, he replicated Cohen's
earlier experiment in a way that the eXperiment appeared to
the participant as two separate, unrelated studies. His
findings disconfirmed the dissonance prediction by showing
that attitudinal changes were directly related to monetary
reward.

Janis and Gilmore (1965) contended that in Festinger
and Carlsmith's study, the high incentive conditions could
have generated a degree of suspiciousness and guilt in the
students for allowing themselves to be exploited by the
experimenter and having lied to another student. Janis
and Gilmore (1965) and Elms and Janis (1965) conducted
studies using different types of sponsorship, amounts of

monetary reward, and types of message content. The results

11

of both experiments led the authors to support Janis and
Gilmore's predictions that:

A large monetary reward will have a positive

effect on attitude change only when the role-

playing task is sponsored by an acceptable

group and is oriented toward a goal perceived

by S as being consonant with his own; but the

same large reward will tend to create suspic-

ion, guilt, and other interfering responses

that make for less attitude change when the

role-playing task is Sponsored by a distrusted

Sponsor and is perceived as having a purpose

antithetical to one's own values (pp. 58-59).

About the same time, Janis and Mann (1965) reported
the findings of an experiment about the effectiveness of
what they called emotional role-playing--later Miller and
Burgoon (1973) would categorize it as generalized role-
playing--in modifying smoking attitudes and habits. In
this study, heavy smokers enacted the role of a cancer
patient through different scenes. Janis and Mann found
that role-playing smokers were significantly more anti-
smoking than control group respondents and, two weeks after
the performance, their consumption of cigarettes had
decreased significantly. Eighteen months later, Mann and
Janis (1968) found that role players had maintained the new
attitude and behavior, and vividly recalled the role-
playing situation they had performed.

Perhaps of these four studies, the ones which most
support the vested interest assumption are Janis and Mann

(1965) and Mann and Janis (1968), where participants not

only changed their attitudes and behavior toward smoking

12

but maintained those changes for at least 18 months. Some
of the items Janis and Mann (1965) used to assess the imme-
diate effect of the role-playing treatment were: (a) par-
ticipants' expectations that "much harm can come to me

from my smoking," and (b) personal beliefs that smoking
leads to lung cancer. These items probably measure the
hedonically negative outcomes participants could foresee
when role-playing the cancer patient. Responses to these
items were in the direction indicating that they believed
smoking produced cancer and that they would suffer much
harm because of smoking. Both items were significantly
different when compared to participants' previous responses
and to those of control reSpondents. These items clearly
indicated that participants adOpting the persona of the
cancer patient strongly perceived the consequences of smok-
ing as hedonically relevant. Moreover, their consonance
between attitudes and behavior after 18 months suggests
that Sivacek and Crano's (1982) proposition that vested
interest is a strong moderator of the attitude-behavior
relationship is on the right track.

A series of studies was conducted to explore the
hypothesis that dissonance and attitude change occur
because of participants' commitment to the advocated posi-
tion (Carlsmith, Collins, & Helmreich, 1966); their per-
ceptions of having a choice (Linder, Cooper, & Jones,

1967); and their perceptions of choices and outcomes

13

(Hoyt, Henley, & Collins, 1972). Calder, Ross, and Insko
(1973) studied the simultaneous effect of incentive, choice,
and consequences (outcomes) of performing a counteratti-
tudinal behavior. Furthermore, they tried to determine
attitudinal attributions peOple make when observing
others' counterattitudinal behavior (Bem, 1965, 1967;
Kelley, 1967) and compared those attributions with the
actual attitudinal changes counterbehaving participants
suffered. The experimenters concluded:

In order for dissonance or reinforcement to be

obtained insincere behavior must result in

aversive consequences. Given aversive conse-

quences, dissonance occurs only when an indi-

vidual is free to choose whether or not to

perform the insincere behavior. In contrast,

reinforcement occurs only when an individual

is required to perform the insincere behavior

(p. 96).
This statement rests on the fact that people in the high
consequence, free choice, and small reward (high dissonance)
conditions and peOple in the high consequence, no choice,
large reward (high incentive) conditions showed more atti-
tude change than other participants. From a vested inter-
est point of view, high dissonance participants could have
felt compelled to change in order to demonstrate that what
they did was a result of their free will. On the other
hand, high incentive peOple had a vested interest in chang-

ing their attitudes toward the counterattitudinal position

and, besides, they had no choice.

14

The functionalistic perspective of impression manage-
ment theory (Gaes, Kalle, & Tedeschi, 1978; Tedeschi &
Rosenfeld, 1981; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971)
apparently has achieved the goal of explaining most of the
contradictory results. A series of studies using the
"bogus pipeline" device have supported impression manage-
ment theory (Gaes et al., 1978; Quigley-Fernandez &
Tedeschi, 1978). The bogus pipeline is an apparatus that
supposedly can detect emotional states and lies more
accurately than a lie detector. Gaes et a1. (1978) used
the same procedure as Hoyt et al. (1972), but they used
two conditions of measurement after participants counter—
attitudinally advocated. Half of the participants were
measured first by the bogus pipeline and subsequently by a
paper and pencil scale. The other half were measured first
by the pencil and paper scale and, secondly, by the bogus
pipeline. Those measured by paper and pencil first showed
attitude changes and maintained these changes when measured
by the bogus pipeline a second time.

The above experiment strongly supported the view that
individuals are affected not only by the experimental
manipulation, but also by other variables, such as environ-
mental cues about the nature of the experiment and the
evaluation they suppose the experimenter is doing. In

general, participants would be expected to perform so as

15

to make the most positive impression on others. Bogus
pipeline experiments led Tedeschi and Rosenfeld (1981)

to say that "Attitude change in the forced compliance
situation is an uninternalized, temporary, feigned response
by subjects that is used as a tactic to manage an identity
as a consistent and morally good person" (p. 163).

Relevant to the previous statement is a study by
Nuttin (1975),in which counteradvocating participants from
a "bad pool" who were led to believe they performed very
poorly in an exam were offered the choice between monetary
payments or an "amoral" reward of illegal points. All
participants preferred the amoral, but hedonically, rele-
vant reward. Intriguingly enough, all participants changed
their pre-role-playing positions drastically. It would be
difficult to explain Nuttin's results by invoking the
notion that people behave only to show identities as
morally good persons. In his study it seems reasonable to
argue that the vested interest involved in obtaining such
a relevant reward caused participants to eliminate thoughts
about the implications of accepting the amoral reward and

the impressions they would produce in the experimenter.

Vested Interest and Incentive Differentiation
Because a hedonically relevant situation can be con-
founded with an incentive, it seems useful to differentiate

both vested interest and incentive positions. Sivacek and

 

16

Crano (1982) posited "If the logical consequence of an
individual's attitude actually affects that person's life
(vested interest), then consistency between attitude and
action should be maximized" (p. 210). From an incentive
point of view, Janis (1968) stated that attitude change
depends on several things:

1. The degree of "biased scanning" in which the role
player engages. This would imply two different verbal
responses the role player must make: (a) invention of argu—
ments which function as incentives for accepting the new
position, and (b) seeing those arguments from the psycho-
logical standpoint of their positive value rather than
their negative value (value consonance).

2. The incentives produced by the biased scanning
have to be powerful enough to create a challenge to the
role player's present position.

3. The arguments of the role—player have to be con-
sonant with his/her values.

From the above description, three main differences
between the two positions are derived. The first concerns
the degree of real situational perceptions of effect for
the person advocating the attitude in question. Vested
interest deals with attitudes that posit real-life conse-
quences for the people who hold them; thus, these attitudes
will have strong relationships with the behaviors they sug-

gest. On the other hand, incentive theory deals with

17

incentives people find to theoretically justify a deter-
mined old or new attitude without such attitudinal justifi-
cations necessarily having any consequences for their
behavior. The second difference, though it would be possi-
ble to argue that vested interest could either facilitate
or inhibit biasing scanning processes, concerns the case
where biased scanning would occur in a different direction.
Counteradvocating persons would think up positive argu-
ments only in situations where the position advocated
would bring them hedonically relevant rewards, otherwise,
they would not engage in positive biased scanning when
counteradvocating. Finally, a corollary to value conso-
nance, incentivists see ego-involvement as an influencing
factor in the role-playing situation (Janis, 1968).
Sivacek and Crano (1982) differentiate ego-involvement from
vested interest arguing that the latter is a more signifi-
cant motivating factor and that all vested interest situa-
tions can be ego-involving, but not all ego-involving
situations involve vested interest; therefore, vested
interest is more important for the attitude-behavior con-
sistency. For instance, if a high tuition increase is
going to be implemented, it will be ego-involving for all
students, but it will differentially affect students' vested
interest based upon their ability or inability to pay.
Suppose students in an eXperiment are induced to

believe a tuition increase may be implemented. Some

18

believe the tuition increase will be very low, others that
it will be very high. Incentive theory predicts that pro-
attitudinal participants in both low and high tuition
increase conditions will show unfavorable attitudes toward
a tuition increase, but the high tuition increase group will
have more extreme attitudes. Counterattitudinal partici-
pants will engage in positive biased scanning of arguments
supporting the advocated position, but the low tuition
increase group, other things being equal, will show more
favorable attitudes toward the tuition increase, since for
them it will be easier to produce positive and suppress
negative aspects of the increase. By contrast, vested
interest theorists would say that regardless of the magni-
tude of the tuition increase, counter- as well as pro-
advocating participants will be minimally favorable toward
the position advocated; since they would feel strong con-
straints in the laboratory condition, they will be mini-
mally consistent with what they just advocated.

If after the eXperiment an unsuspected individual
requests the subjects to work either against or in favor
of the tuition increase, incentive theorists will expect
that (1) low and high vested interest participants who had
defended an against-tuition-increase position in the lab-
oratory (proattitudinal advocacy) will work against the
tuition increase, but the high vested interest group will

work the most. (2) Both high and low vested interest

19

participants who had favored a tuition increase in the
laboratory (counterattitudinal advocacy) will work in
favor of a tuition increase, but the low increase condi-
tion will work the most. On the other hand, a vested
interest position will expect that low tuition increase
groups, regardless of type of advocacy, will be insuffi-
ciently motivated to work either for or against the
increase. It will also expect high increase groups,
regardless of type of advocacy, to be strongly motivated
to work against the tuition increase and not to work in

its favor.

Hypotheses

 

In an experiment similar to the one discussed above,

several hypotheses can be formally stated.

Attitudes in the Laboratory

Hypothesis 1: Pro- as well as counteradvocators
will be mildly consistent with the
issues they advocate.

 

Requested Behavior in
the Laboratory

 

Hypothesis 2: If participants are requested to
support an issue which is consis-

tent with what they advocated, they
will support it more than participants
whose advocacy is not consistent with
the issue.

 

20

Requested Behavior Outside

 

the Laboratory

 

Hypothesis 3:

 

Hypothesis 4:

 

Hypothesis 5:

 

When compared to affected groups,
participants who feel the position
they advocated is not going to
affect their life will be less
motivated to engage in activities
for or against what they advocated.

When compared to the nonaffected
group, participants who feel the
position they advocated will posi-
tively affect their life will be
willing to engage in activities to
support the position they advocated
and will not be motivated to behave
against it.

When compared to the nonaffected
group, participants who feel the
position they advocated will nega-
tively affect their life will not

be motivated to engage in activities
to support the position they advo-
cated, but will be willing to behave
against it.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Overview

Participants

 

Participants were 128 volunteer freshmen communication
students. When participants volunteered for the research,
they were asked to put their name and phone number on a
list in order to be reached for the experiment. All par-
ticipants received extra credit for their participation.
Two participants were lost in the laboratory condition,
and 21 participants were lost in the posttest outside
laboratory condition. Thus, 126 participants were analyzed
in the laboratory condition and 107 in the outside labora-

tory condition.

Experimenters

 

Four senior students, two females and two males, were
trained for a period of two months prior to performing as
experimenters. They rehearsed the experimental situation
until they mastered all the procedures. Graduate students
and faculty served as training subjects in order to evaluate

the experimenters' performance.

21

22

Manipulation and Measures
Favorable Sponsorship
When participants volunteered for the experiment, they
read a statement on the sign-up list indicating they were
to engage in intellectual exercises.
When arriving at the laboratory, participants were

told:

The Communication Department (favorable sponsor)
is interested in knowing students' Opinions about
current issues on campus and gathering information
either in favor or against those issues. In order
to do that we will ask you to argue in favor or
against some issues, record a brief speech, and
fill out a questionnaire. However, first you have
to agree to participate and sign a departmental
consent form (Appendix A).

Anonimity and Free Choice
After the participants read the research consent form,
the experimenter stated:

As you read in the consent form, you are going to
argue either in favor or against University poli-
cies, but your name is not going to be used under
any circumstance. If you want to continue, sign
the consent form. If not, you are free to stop
now; we will give you credit for coming here any-
way.

Vested Interest

 

Following the anonimity and free choice manipulation,
vested interest was aroused by giving participants infor-
mation which made them believe that a plan to increase

their tuition was going to be implemented (Appendix B).

23

Role-playing

 

After participants read the vested interest informa-
tion, the researcher went on to say:

The Communication Department is develOping a
study to analyze the possible impact of a tui-
tion raise and to assess students' reactions to
such a plan. As we have already collected enough
positive (or negative) information and arguments
about the plan, we would like you for the next
ten minutes to write down arguments about the
negative (positive) consequences of this tuition
increase. Later we will ask you to record a
brief Speech, three to five minutes, about what
you have written. When recording, try to be as
realistic as possible because the Communication
Department will keep this record for future use.
To stimulate your thinking, we will provide you
with some statements from which arguments can be
developed about the negative (positive) outcomes
of the tuition increase plan (Appendix C).

Then, the experimenter provided the participant with the
negative or positive statements about the tuition plan.

When the participant finished the essay, the experi-
menter took it, together with all the other information,
and asked the participant to recall what she/he had just
written in order to record the speech.

Attitude Measure and
Manipulation Check

 

Following the speech, the participant was asked to
give his/her Opinions about the proposed plan on a lO-item
scale questionnaire which contained the attitude measure
(questions 1-7) and the vested interest manipulation check

(questions 8-10) (Appendix D).

24

Laboratory Behavior Measure

Finally, when the participant was about to leave, the
researcher mentioned:

A friend of mine who knows that I am doing this

study asked me to pass this petition against the

tuition increase around. Read it and you can
Sign it if you feel like it (Appendix E).

Behavior Manipulation

 

Between 12 and 17 days after the laboratory Situation,
each participant was contacted by phone. The experimenter
identified him/herself as an interviewer from a student
group which was working against or in favor of the tuition
plan. Care was taken to make sure participants who had a
female experimenter in the laboratory were telephoned by
a male and vice versa.

Outside Laboratory
Behavior Measure

 

 

After the above manipulation, a questionnaire composed
Of three questions was applied to assess the participants'
willingness to behave in favor or against the tuition
increase (Appendix F).

Following the behavior questionnaire, the participant
was completely debriefed and asked if She/he was suspicious
that the interview was part of the study he/she had par-
ticipated in two weeks ago. In addition, She/he was
offered the Opportunity to receive a OOpy of the final

research paper.

25

Design
The design used was a 2 x 2 x 2 posttest only factorial
design. The variables manipulated were vested interest
(low, high),role-playing (pro- and counterattitudinal

advocacy), and requested behavior (pro- and counterbehav-

 

 

ior).
Vested Interest
Low High
Pro 1 Proadvocacy 3 Proadvocacy

2 Counteradvocacy 4 Counteradvocacy
Requested
Behav1or Counter 5 Proadvocacy 7 Proadvocacy

6 Counteradvocacy 8 Counteradvocacy

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

The analysis of variance showed no differences
because of sex of participants or experimenters; thus, the
data were collapsed across these factors.

The reliability analysis for the attitude scale was
acceptable (Cronbach's alpha = .93). Though the reliabil-
ity of the affect scale (vested interest) was not as high
as the attitude scale, it still was acceptable (Cronbach's
alpha = .78). For the posttest behavior measure (outside
laboratory) the items were standardized due to differences
in their scales (standardized alpha = .77).

A series of Fmax tests performed on the different
measures yielded nonsignificant results, indicating that
the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not violated.

An analysis of the row data for the outside laboratory
behavior measure permitted the discovery of two outliers
(Pedhazur, 1982). These two extremes residuals (z = 2.34)

were removed from the data.

Manipulation Check

 

An analysis of variance on the manipulation check

(affect scale) of the variable vested interest in the

26

27

laboratory showed no differences either for the main
effects or the interaction between vested interest and
advocacy. The means tended toward the neutral point
(Table 1). Unfortunately, results of this analysis indi-
cate an apparent failure of the vested interest manipu-

lation.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Manipulation
Check by Condition

 

 

 

 

Advocacy
Pro Counter
M = 16.23 15.09
Low S = 8.11 7.40
Vested N = 32.0 33.0
Interest
17.32 14.26
High 7.54 7.05
31.0 31.0

 

 

 

Attitudes in the Laboratory

 

Participants' attitudinal responses were conditioned

by the laboratory situation.

AS expected from Hypothe-

sis 1, both counteradvocating and proadvocating partici-

pants, regardless of the vested interest manipulation,

were mildly consistent with the position they advocated.

The difference between these two positions was significant

(F = 31.75, p < .01, n = .45, Table 2).

An analysis of

the means cell-by-cell indicates that counterattitudinal

participants rated on the positive side (in favor of the

28

 

 

mm. man. n~.omH NNH Hm.~mmmH oom.mvH >o< x H>\m
I: ooo. mo. A mo. Hm.~ H Hm.~ mmo. >o< x H>
mv. mom. Ho. v mn.Hm nh.ossv H n>.osh¢ omH.mm Homoo>o¢
In ooo. mo. A mo. mm.m H ma.m mmo. umououcH poumo>
c N: d m m2 m6 mm m¢> momoom

 

ousmmmz OOSUHuud may mo mocmwnm> no mammamcé .N canoe

29

tuition increase) of the scale while proattitudinal par-
ticipants rated on the unfavorable side (against the tui-
tion increase) of the scale, thus confirming Hypothesis 1
(Table 3). There was no main effect of vested interest or
interaction effect Of vested interest and advocacy on the

attitude variable.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Attitude Measure
by Condition

 

 

 

 

Advocacy
Pro Counter

M = 28.74 40.76

Low S = 13.14 12.43

Vested N = 31.0 33.0
Interest

27.37 40.66

High 10.77 12.65

32.0 32.0

 

 

 

 

Fmax = 1.49 (df = 4,32; a > .05)

Fewer counteradvocating participants signed the peti-
tion than did proadvocating participants, which supported
Hypothesis 2 of this study. The difference between these
two groups was significant (F = 13.07, p < .01, n =.31,
Table 4). The mean for counteradvocating participants was

1.52 and for proadvocating participants was 1.83, where a

30

 

 

mm. mom. Hm. «NH mm.s~ com. >a< x H>\m
oo. coo. mo. A oo. oo. H oo. ooo. >aaelH>
Hm. smo. Ho. v mo.mH mm.~ H Gm.~ Hmo. momoo>em
so. Hoo. mo. A AH. mo. H mo. coo. umououaH noumo>
: N: a m m: up mm m«> oousom

 

whamooz

Hofl>mnom muoumwoamq may no moccaum> mo mammamcm .v OHQMB

31

larger mean indicates fewer peOple signing the petition

(Table 5).

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for the Laboratory
Behavioral Measure (Petition) by Condition

 

 

 

 

Advocacy
Pro Counter
Low M = 1.81 1.51
S = .40 .51
Vested N = 31.0 33.0
Interest
High 1.84 1.53
.37 .51
32.0 32.0

 

 

 

 

Fmax = 1.9 (df = 4,32; d > .05)

Requested Behavior Outside the Laboratopy

It was predicted that vested interest information
given in the laboratory would interact with the requested
behavior outside the laboratory. This interaction of
vested interest and behavior yielded a Significant result
(F = 4.85, p < .05, n2 = .03, n =.19, Table 6). The means
entering in this interation are Shown in Table 7.

When low vested interest participants were asked to

work in favor or against the tuition increase, they refused

to do so, which supported Hypothesis 3.

32

 

 

 

mo. ooo. .. u- om.o no mo.oom omm.m mum x >o< x H>\m
mH. oHo. mo. om.~ o~.o H om.o ooo. mmm x >o¢ x H>
oo. ooo. mo. oo. mH.~ H MH.~ omo. mmm x >a<
oH. omo. mo. mo.o mm.oH H mm.oH ooH. mmm x H>
oo. moo. mo. om. om.H H om.H mHo. >o¢ x H>
oo. omm. Ho. oo.mm mH.H~H H mH.H~H moH.H HoH>mnom
oo. moo. mo. so. om.H H om.H «Ho. somoo>n¢
oH. mmo. mo. om.m mo.~H H mo.mH NNH. umououcH noumo>
c No a m m: on mm ma> oousom

OHDWNQZ .HOHNwMQOQ \wHOHflHOQme “mom ”SH MO OUCMflHMD MO WHMNng om UHDMB

33

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for the Post-Laboratory
Behavior Measure by Condition

 

 

 

 

Probehavior Counterbehavior
Proadv Counadv Proadv Counadv
M = .51 -.08 -l.72 - .66
Low S = 1.96 2.14 1.89 1.49
Vested N = 15.0 17.0 15.0 11.0
Interest
1.22 2.26 -1.52 -1.24
High 2.18 1.93 1.60 1.60
14.0 9.0 ‘ 10.0 14.0

 

 

 

 

Fmax = 2.15 (df - 8,11 ; a > .05)

When high vested interest-proattitudinal participants
were asked to work against the tuition increase they were
willing to offer their free time for that cause. On the
other hand, these participants were not motivated to work
for the tuition increase. These results supported Hypothe-
sis 4 (Table 7).

High vested interest-counteradvocating participants
Offered time to work against the tuition increase and
refused to work in favor of it, supporting Hypothesis 5
(Table 7).

Examination of the means in Table 7 indicates that
high vested interest participants who had counteradvocated
(defended the tuition increase) and rated positively the

increase in the laboratory were the ones who Offered more

34

time to work against the tuition increase (M = 2.26).
This finding suggests that participants react to con-
straints in the laboratory, but that this reaction can be
converted to a boomerang effect when participants' vested

interests are jeOpardized in real life settings.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

The outcomes of this study supported the theoretical
implications of the vested interest position.

The apparent failure of the vested interest manipula-
tion can be explained by the fact that participants'
responses to the affect scale, as well as to the other
laboratory measures, were conditioned by the hedonically
relevant situation the laboratory activity posited for
participants. Their moderated answers on all the labora-
tory measures support this possibility. The above find-
ings, plus participants' answers to the outside laboratory
behavior measure, strongly suggested that the vested inter-
est manipulation conditioned participants' willingness and
unwillingness to behave in real life settings. Even though
these results are very promising, it is necessary to look
for other ways of checking participants' vested interest in
future research. For instance, in this research partici-
pants' annual income could have been investigated to deter-
mine whether or not the amount of tuition increase

represented a serious financial difficulty for them.

35

36

Neither dissonance nor incentive theories would fully
explain the outcomes of this research. As a whole, it
indicates that certain activities in laboratory experiments
can be hedonically relevant for the participants; thus, in
the laboratory they will act conditioned by those hedonic
forces. Therefore, their attitudes and Opinions have to
be analyzed in that context, and those attitudes and opin-
ions will not necessarily imply that participants will be
guided by them when they behave in natural settings; thus,
in the present study, participants who had defended a high
tuition increase and had rated it favorable in the labora-
tory were the ones who offered more time to work against
a tuition increase in real life settings. On the other
hand, hedonically relevant information for participants'
daily life will condition their actual behavior regardless
of what attitudes they have expressed in the laboratory.

The support this study offers for Hypothesis 1 and
Hypothesis 2 has implications for the assumption that
attitude change occurs when people perceive aversive con-
sequences and have freedom of choice to engage in counter—
advocacy (Hoyt, Henley, & Collins, 1972; Calder, Ross, &
Insko, 1973). Counteradvocacy participants were favorable
toward the tuition increase. However, the confirmation of
Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 5 indicates that the attitudes

that counteradvocating participants show in the laboratory

37

are not related to actual routine behavior and contradicts
Hoyt's (Hoyt et al., 1972) claim that participants' feel-
ings of personal responsibility for having advocated
against their attitudes will produce "lasting personal
changes" toward the advocated issue. Taken together, the
findings of this study bolster the postulates of the vested
interest position and its potential as a broader theoreti-
cal alternative that encompasses incentive, dissonance,

and impression management theories.

Pragmatically, it would be useful to test the vested
interest position in conditions where the advocacy brings
positive hedonic consequences (as in the study by Janis &
Mann, 1965). If the expected outcomes of studies of that
type are confirmed, then practical applications can be
offered, e.g., in the adOption of new technologies and
practices in different fields such as agriculture, health,
and nutrition, it would be possible to engage reluctant
technology users in role-playing experiences that would
arouse positive, hedonically relevant outcomes so that they
persuade themselves to use the new practices and tech-
nologies.

Recently, Stults, Messe, and Kerr (1984) have reported
that true attitude change occurs in the laboratory condi-
tion when participants attribute the arousal to the counter-

advocacy' activity instead of to a bogus pipeline device.

38

It would be of theoretical interest to contrast vested
interest and attribution arousal positions in laboratory
and outside laboratory settings.

Finally, it is necessary to reproduce studies of this
type across different situations and under conditions of
greater strength: more participants, more powerful behav-
ioral measures, more apt manipulation checks, and more
degrees of variability of the vested interest manipula-
tion. However, these weaknesses in the design and conduct
of this research do not limit the potential that the vested
interest orientation has for the understanding and refine-

ment of role-playing as a persuasive practice.

APPENDICES

39

APPENDIX A

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

40

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

With regard to my participation in research:

1.

10.

I understand that when I Sign up for a given study
I am indicating my Sincere intent to participate
in that study. I agree to sign up for a study
ONLY WHEN I FULLY INTEND TO PARTICIPATE.

I understand the procedures by which my partici-
pation will count for some form of credit in the
Communication class listed below.

I understand that any credit I may earn via par-
ticipation in research is not transferrable to
another class or another term.

I understand that, apart from my participation

in a given study, my actual performance in that
study will in no way affect my evaluation in a
given course or in the Department of Communication.

I understand that my participation in a study
does not guarantee any beneficial results to me
other than credit for participation.

I understand that I have the right to withdraw
from any study at any time without penalty.

I understand that I have the right to have any
Study in which I participate explained to me
to my satisfaction after I have participated.

I understand that the results of a given study
will be treated in strict confidence with regard
to the data on any given participant. Within
this restriction, I understand that the results
will be made available to me at my request.

I understand that the data I provide a researcher
as a result of my participation in a given study
may be used by other scientists for secondary
analysis. Again data will be treated with the
strictest confidence.

I understand that my volunteering to participate
is, in and of itself, part of a larger research
project concerning the effects of participation
on students.

41

42
DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONTENT FORM (cont.)

 

11. I understand that in this study I will be asked to
develop and to present arguments in favor of, or
opposed to, a plan under current consideration in
the university.

12. I understand that should I have any questions,
problems, complaints, or if I desire further
information, I have the right to contact the
Research Coordinator in the Department of Communi—
cation.

Given these understandings, I have freely consented to
participate in scientific research being conducted during
this term in the Department of Communication.

Signed

 

Date

 

Name (print)

 

Student number

 

Class

 

Section

 

APPENDIX B

VESTED INTEREST MANIPULATION

(HIGH AND LOW)

43

VESTED INTEREST MANIPULATION
LOW

As you may know, the economy of the State of Michigan

has suffered considerably in the current recession. This
Situation has led Michigan State University authorities to
increase tuition in the last two academic years as a way
to overcome the budget cuts the state government has im-
posed; however, the situation remains critical and the
expected deficit for this academic year is $12 million.

Unfortunately, university authorities have said that the
number of high school graduates has decreased significantly
to the point that next academic year the expected number of
students entering the University will be 15% less than five
years ago. This certainly will aggravate even more the
economic situation of Michigan State University.

Both deficit budgets and decreasing numbers of students
have prompted university authorities to propose a plan
which includes a tuition increase of 3.5% for next year.
If approved this plan will mean an increase on cost per
student per year of $112.

VESTED INTEREST MANIPULATION

HIGH

 

AS you may know, the economy of the State of Michigan has
suffered considerably in the current recession. This situ-
ation has led Michigan State University authorities to in-
crease tuition in the last two academic years as a way to
overcome the budget cuts the state government has imposed;
however, the situation remains critical and the expected
deficit for this academic year is $12 million.

Unfortunately, university authorities have said that the
number of high school graduates has decreased significantly
to the point that next academic year the expected number of
students entering the University will be 15% less than

five years ago. This certainly will aggravate even more the
economic situation of Michigan State University.

Both deficit budgets and decreasing numbers of students have
prompted university authorities to propose a plan which in-
cludes a tuition increase of 17.5% for next year. If ap-
proved this plan will mean an increase on cost per student
per year Of $560.

44

APPENDIX C

REASONS (FAVORING AND CONTRARY) TO

A TUITION INCREASE

45

REASONS FAVORING A TUITION INCREASE
-— Positive impact on maintenance of staff excellence

-- Positive impact on international prestige of the
university

-- Positive impact on motivation of students for excellence
-- Positive impact on equipment supply program

-- Positive impact on university attractiveness to high
quality professors

You may develop the positive aspects of the proposed tuition

increase plan according to your own ideas or according to
one or more of the above statements.

REASONS CONTRARY TO A TUITION INCREASE
-- Negative impact on number of new students
-- Negative impact on conditions for current students
-- Negative impact on middle-class students
-- Negative impact on students' motivation to study
-- Negative impact on attraction of international students
You may develop the negative aspects Of the proposed tuition

increase plan according to your own ideas or according to
one or more of the above statements.

46

APPENDIX D

LABORATORY QUESTIONNAIRE-~ATTITUDE AND AFFECT

SCALES

47

LABORATORY QUESTIONNAIRE -- ATTITUDE AND AFFECT SCALES

Please answer the following questions:

1. DO you feel the plan

very __ __ __ __
bad 1 2 3 4

2. Do you feel the plan
very __ __

unreason- l 2 ‘8 ‘4
able

3. Do you feel the plan

very __ __ __
dumb l ‘_2 3 4

4. Do you feel the plan

very
ineffec-
tive

‘I ‘2 ‘8 ‘8

5. DO you feel the plan
very __

unneces- l ‘2 ‘8 ‘8
sary

6. Do you feel the plan

very __ __' __ __
unfair 1 2 3 4

is bad or good?

‘5 ‘8 ‘7 ‘8 ‘8 I8

very
good

is unreasonable or reasonable?

5 6 ‘7 ‘8 "9 0

is dumb or smart?

‘8 ‘8 ‘7 ‘8 ‘8 I8

very
reason-
able

very
smart

will be ineffective or effective?

‘8 ‘8 ‘7 ‘8 ‘8 I8

very
effec-
tive

is unnecessary or necessary?

‘8 ‘8 ‘7 ‘8 ‘8 I8

is unfair or fair?

‘8 ‘8 ‘7 ‘8 ‘8' I8

48

very
neces-
sary

very
fair

49

LABORATORY QUESTIONNAIRE -- ATTITUDE AND AFFECT SCALES
(cont.)

7. DO you feel the plan is negative or positive?

very ___ __ __ __ __ very
negative ‘I ‘2 3 4 5 ‘8 ‘7 ‘8 9 10 positive

8. If this plan were to be adopted, how much would it
affect you?

“thing _1'7‘87'8—8—7‘8’8'1'8 alOt

9. If this plan were to be adopted, how difficult would
it be for you to meet the additional tuition cost?

very __ __ __ __ __ very
diffi— l ‘2 3 ‘8 5 6 7 ‘8 ‘8 I8 easy
cult

10. If this plan were to be adopted, how likely is it that
you would transfer or drOp-Out of the University?

very __ __ __ __ __ __’ __ __ very
likely l ‘2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I8 unlikely

APPENDIX E

PETITION

50

PETITION

TO THE ADMINISTRATION:

WE, the undersigned students of Michigan State University,
STRONGLY OPPOSE the plan to raise the 1984-85 tuition rate.
We believe that this action will pose an undue financial
hardship on many of the students of this University, and

we urge you to reconsider this action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

APPENDIX F

BEHAVIOR MANIPULATION AND POSTTEST

52

BEHAVIOR MANIPULATION AND POSTTEST
"Hello, I am working for a student group which is developing
a campaign called 'STUDENT AWARENESS AGAINST TUITION IN-
CREASE' (or 'STUDENT AWARENESS IN FAVOR OF TUITION INCREASE').
The reason behind our campaign is that we have known that
there is a growing controversy between university authori-
ties about the possible necessity of a tuition increase for
next year. As we disfavor (favor) a tuition increase for
next year and we think that the only way to guarantee uni—
versity survival is not (is) through a tuition increase, we
are selecting students from the phone book in order to

create pressure in favor of our position."

"Please would you answer some questions"

Next, the following questionnaire was applied:
(Outside laboratory behavior measure)

1. Do you agree with our position? Yes ( ) NO ( )

If yes, ask question #2;
If no, go to question 3a.

2. Would you be willing to give some of your free time for
our campaign? Yes ( ) No ( )

If yes, ask question #3;
If no, go to question #3a.

3. How many hours would you give us next week?

3a. Why?

53

REFERENCES

54

REFERENCES

Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and
problems. In R. P. Abelson et al. (Eds.), Theories
pf cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago:
Rand McNally.

 

Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative inter-
pretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.
Psychological Review, 14, 183-200.

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.

 

Calder, B. J., Ross, J., & Insko, C. A. (1973). Attitude
change and attitude attribution: Effects of incen-
tive, choice, and consequences. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 25, 84-89.

 

 

Carlsmith, J. M., Collins, B. E., & Helmreich, R. L.
(1966). Studies in forced compliance: The effect of
pressure for compliance of attitude change produced by
face-to-face role-playing and anonymous essay writing.
Journal of Personalipy and Social Psychology, 4, 1-13.

 

Cohen, A. F. (1962). An experiment on small reward for
discrepant compliance and attitude change. In J. J.
Brehm & A. R. Cohen, Explorations is cognitive disso-
nance. New York: Wiley.

 

COOper, J. (1976). Deception and role-playing: On telling
the good guys from the bad guys. American Psychologist,
‘31, 605-610.

 

Corsini, R. J. (1966). Roleeplaying in psychotherapy:
A manual. Chicago: Aldine Publishing CO.

Elms, A. C., & Janis, I. L. (1965). Counter-norm atti-
tudes induced by consonant versus dissonant conditions
of role-playing. Journal of Experimental Research in
Personality, 1, 50—60.

 

55

56

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Stanford: Stanford University.

 

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. Cognitive consequences
of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 58, 203-210.

 

 

Forward, J., Canter, R., & Kirsch, N. Role enactment and
deception methodologies. American Psychologist, 44,
595-604.

 

Gaes, G. G., Kalle, R. J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978).
Impression management in the forced compliance situa-
tion: Two studies using the bogus pipeline. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 493-510.

Goofman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday
life. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Greenberg, M. S. Role-playing: An alternative to decep-
tion?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32, 358-367.

Hoyt, M. F., Henley, M. D., & Collins, B. E. (1972).
Studies in forced compliance: The influence of
choice and consequences on attitude change. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 3;, 1-7.

Janis, I. I., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role-
playing on Opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 52, 211-218.

 

Janis, I. L., & Gilmore, J. B. (1965). The influence of
incentive conditions on the success of role-playing
in modifying attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 4, 17-27.

Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1965). Effectiveness of emo-
tional role-playing in modifying smoking habits and
attitudes. Journal of Experimental Research in
Personality, 4, 84-90.

 

Janis, I. L. (1968). Attitude change via role-playing.
In R. P. Abelson et al. (Eds.), Theories of Cognitive
Consistency: A Source-Book. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of
attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204.

57

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psy-
chology. In D. Levine (Ed.). Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln, Nebraska: University
of Nebraska Press.

 

 

King, B. T., & Janis, I. L. (1956). Comparison of the
effectiveness of improvised vs. non-improvised role-
playing in producing Opinion changes. Human Relations,
2, 177-186.

Linder, D. E., COOper, J., & Jones, E. E. (1967). Decision
freedom as a determinent of the role of incentive
magnitude in attitude change. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 4, 245-254.

 

Mann, L., & Janis, I. L. (1968). A follow-up study of the
long term effects of emotional role-playing. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 339-342,

Miller, G. R. (1981). Social change through persuasion:
Two models in search of an agent. Paper presented
at the Colloque International sur la Persuasion
Sociale, Paris, France, December.

Miller, G. R., & Burgoon, M. (1973). New techniques of
persuasion. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

 

Mixon, D. (1972). Instead of deception. Journal of the
Theory of Social Behavior, 3, 145-177.

 

Moreno, J. L. (1964). Psychodrama (Vol. 1). New York:
Beacon House, 1946. (Revised).

 

Moreno, J. L. (1962). Role theory and the emergence of
the self. Group Psychotherapy, 45, 114-117.

Nuttin, J. M., Jr. (1975). The illusion of attitude
change: Toward a response contagion theory of
persuasion. New York: Academic Press.

 

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral
research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Pepitone, A. (1966). Some conceptual and empirical prob-
lems'of consistency models. In S. Feldman (Ed.),
Cognitive consistenpy. New York: Academic Press.

 

Quigley-Fernandez, C., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978). The
BOgus pipeline as a lie detector: Two validity
studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
24, 247-256.

58

Rosenberg, M. J.

Cognitive structure and attitu-
dinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Ppy-
chology, 55, 367-372.

(1956).

Rosenberg, M. J.

(1960). Analysis of affective-cognitive
consistency.

In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg
(Eds.), Attitude organization and change. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Rosenberg, M. J.

(1965). When dissonance fails: On
eliminating evaluation apprehension from attitude
measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 5, 28-42.

Sanford, N. (1966). The freeing and acting out of impulse
in late adolescence:

Evidence from two cases.
R. W. White (Ed.), The study Of lives.

 

In
New York:
Atherton Press (3rd edition).
Schlenker, B. R. (1973). Self-image maintenance and
enhancement:

Attitude change following counter-
attitudinal advocacy.

Proceedings Of the Blst Con-
vention of the American Psychological Association,
5, 271-272.

 

 

Schlenker, B. R.

Translating actions into atti-
tudes: An identity-analytic approach to the explana-
tion of social conduct.

In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology
New York:

(Vol. 15).
Academic Press.

(1982).

Scott, W. A. (1957). Attitude change through reward of
verbal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 55, 72-75.

Scott, W. A.

(1959). Cognitive consistency, response
reinforcement, and attitude change.
219-229(a).

Sociometry, 55
Scott, W. A. (1959).

Attitude change by response rein-
forcement:

Replication and extension. Sociometry,
3;, 328-335(b).

Sivacek, J., & Crano, W. (1982).

Vested interest as a
moderator of attitude behavior consistency. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 210-221.
Stults, D. M., Messe, L. A., & Kerr, N. L. (1984). Belief
discrepant behavior and the bogus pipeline: Impres-
sion management Of arousal attribution." Journal of
EXperimental Social Psychology, 25, 47-54.

59

Tedeschi, J. T., & Rosenfeld, P. (1981). Impression
management theory and the forced compliance situation,
In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory
and social psycholpgical research. New York: Academic
Press.

 

 

Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971).
Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiotination or public
spectable? American Psychologist, 35, 685-695.

 

Wilshire, B. (1982). Role-playing and identity. Blooming-
ton: Indiana University Press.