Cognitive Dissonance and Post‐Decision Attitude Change in Six Presidential Elections

Abstract

Data from the National Election Studies were examined in an effort to isolate cognitive dissonance of two kinds: dissonance arising from a behavioral commitment in the form of voting, and dissonance arising from inconsistencies associated with having supported the losing candidate. Feeling thermometer ratings of the two principal presidential candidates obtained before and immediately after six elections (1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996) were analyzed. Regression estimates supported a dissonance reduction explanation of observed attitude changes. Voters, as compared to nonvoters, tended to increase the evaluative distance between candidates after an election, whereas supporters of the losing candidate were more likely than supporters of the winning candidate to decrease such evaluative distances. An additional examination of voters yielded results consistent with dissonance theory: After the election, respondents reporting favorable evaluations of both candidates (a difficult choice) tended to spread comparative candidate evaluations compared to respondents who were favorable toward only one candidate (an easy choice). The results both support and cast doubt on prior studies.

Do Leadership Changes Improve Electoral Performance?

“…For example, politicians often receive better evaluations after they have won an election, even from voters who voted for another candidate (Beasley and Joslyn 2001). Also, Poguntke and Webb (2005) argue that a direct election among the party rank-and-file will provide the party leader with more legitimacy and thus also autonomy.…”

The Intuitive Traditionalist

“…People are usually more familiar with incumbents (Erikson, 1971); exposure and familiarity increase liking generally (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950;Zajonc, 1968) and vote-getting in particular (Grush, 1980;Grush, McKeough, & Ahlering, 1978;Schaffner & Wandersman, 1974). People are motivated to rationalize existing social arrangements ( Jost et al, 2004), of which winning candidates are an example (Beasley & Josslyn, 2001;Kay et al, 2002). And because people tend to be sensitive to losses (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991), and incumbents represent what is already established, incumbency effects may be driven by concerns associated with change, loss, and risk (Quattrone & Tversky, 1988).…”

Client choice of treatment and client outcomes

“…Typically, consumer regret is stronger~or more likely! when a consumer initially had a difficult time choosing between two attractive options~Beasley & Joslyn, 2001;Inman & Zeelenberg, 2002;Tsiros & Mittal, 2000!. Thus, in the current study, consumer regret should be greater for:~1!…”